
Qass 
Book 



Bxsii 



v 









WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

O R , 

SOME OF THE REASONS AND FACTS 

WHICH MADE ME A BAPTIST: 

BY REV. T. B. KINGSBURY, A. M., 

PASTOR OF THE BAPTIST CHURCH, 
WAERENTON, N. C. 




** Behold, TO obey is better than sacrifice/' ^'''*'**^ ^ ^ 

I Sam. XV, 22. 
" It is a dangerous thing, in the service of God. to decline 
from His own institutions ; we have to do with a God who is 
wise to Dvescrihe His own worship, just to require what he has 
prescribed, and powerful to revenge what He has not pre- 
scribed." 

Bishop Hall. 



i>xjBi:.isii:E;r> b^ok a?iiE j^xjthor. 



PKINTED AT THE INDEX OFFICE, 
1867. 



t> 






Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1867, 
By CAMERON k SYKES, 
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the 
District of Virginia. 



TO 

JOHX H. MILLS, A. M., 

LATE PKESIDEXT OF 
OXFORD FEMALE COLLEGE, 

IS AFFECTIOXATELY DEDICATED, 

BY 

HIS FRIEND AXD BROTHER, 

THE AUTHOR. 



For the convenience of Mini:?ters and Scholars, 
the following- 

RULES OF INTERPRETATION 

ARE PRIXTEB. 

'•' The primary or literal signification of a word must always 
be taken, unless the context obviously demands a secondary sig- 
nification." 

ErnestVs rule^ adopted by Professor Stuart, of Andover. 

''Words are generally to be understood in their usual and 
viost knoicn signification ; not so much regarding the propriety 
of grammar, as theiv general and ^90/??.*Zar use.^' 

Blackstoiie^ s rule. 

" A doctrine proved by sufficient evidence, is not to be rejected 
on any account whatever."" 

Rule of Dr Woods, of Andover. 

" Use is the sole arbiter of language ; and whatever is agree- 
able to this authority, stands justified beyond impeachment." 

" That when a thing is proved by sufficient evidence^ no ob- 
jection from difficulties can be admitted as decisive, except they 
involve an impossibility. ' ' 

•' That in controversy a word occurring frequently in the lan- 
guage is never to be taken arbitrarily in a sense which it cannot 
be shown incontestably to have in so7ne other passage." 

'' A word that applies to two anodes can designate neither.'^ 

Dr. Alexander Carson-s rules. 

In the investigation of the vexed question of Baptism, the 
above rules will be found very useful. In the discussion, it will 
be found that Baptists alone can bear their application in every 
instance. 



PREFACE. 

It was announced through the press in the latter part of 1865, 
that I would publish a book upon the subject of my change of 
church relations. The manuscript still remains in my bands, 
and I purpose now, upon the advice of brethren, to use a part 
of the material that has accumulated, in furnishing a series of 
articles for the Biblical Recorder. How many numbers will 
constitute the series, I cannot now say. It will depend upon 
their reception by the readers of the Recorder^ and the time at 
my command for condensing, selecting, altering, or re-writing 
when deemed necessary. The matter for the most part will be 
drawn directly from the book, although a few items will be in- 
troduced which had no influence over me as they have been 
gathered since I united with the Baptists. They are considered 
too important to be omitted in the discussion. A great deal 
will have to be necessarily recast, as its present form renders it 
unsuitable for a newspaper series. Unless these articles should 
be estimated as of more value than I anticipate, the discussion 
will be confined to the Mode of Baptism^ although the subject 
of Infant Baptism constitutes the larger portion of my manu- 
script. If any portion of the latter should ever be called for, it 
will be forthcoming in some form. 

If I should be made sensible of any error as to a statement 
of a supposed fact, or of injustice to any author, the correction 
will be cheerfully made. I seek for truth, and trust I do not 
belong to that class of writers who perpetuate an error when 
convinced it is so. I hope that the same candor and fairness 
will be manifested by all my readers that I trust animated me 
whilst searching diligently for the truth. I devoutly pray that 
G-od may bless and own all the truth that these articles may 
contain ; and if there be any error, that in mercy He will ren- 
der it harmless. 

Wakrenton, N, C, Nov- 1. 1866. 



INTRODUCTION. 

The following articles appeared in the Biblical Recorder^ pub- 
lished at Kaleigh, N. C, and were so favorably received by the 
Baptists in North Carolina, that the author has concluded to 
publish them in a more permanent and useful form. In doing 
this, he only yields to the generally expressed desire of brethren 
whose good opinion he values, and whose judgment he respects. 
It is proper to state that the series was prepared somewhat 
hurriedly from meynoranda which had been collected during a 
very protracted examination of the much mooted question, 
■'■ What is Baptism ?" The articles for the most part have been 
written in a simple style, without any special attempt at fine 
writing. He has assurances that they have already done good, 
aipd he hopes that by being presented in the present form they 
wall be still farther useful in promoting the ends of truth. He 
feels iustified in savins:, sustained as he is bv the concurrent 
opinion of discriminative brethren, that this little volume will 
J found valuable as a Haxd-Book: upon a subject that is re- 
ceiving more and more attention at the hands of the wise and 
learned. 

He has made a few emendations and changes in the articles 
as originally published. Some new matter has been oAded. 

July 23,^1867. 



CONTENTS. 



NUMBER I. 

Brief History of the Change. — First Doubts. — Eeading of 
Stuart of Andover, &c 13 

NUMBER II. 

More from Prof. Stuart. — Eeading of Carson. — Doubts. — 
Tears. — Trials. — Convictions. — Final Action. — Purpose 
in View 21 

NUMBER III. 

Important Testimonies from Eminent Scholars in the Lu- 
theran, German Reformed, and ISTon-Conformist Churches 
given in their own language 29 

NUMBER IV. 

Important Testimonies Continued. — What the most Dis- 
tinguished Presbyterian and Episcopal Authors say 87 

NUMBER V. 

Important Testimonies Continued. — What Distinguished 
Methodists, Romanists, Quakers, and Infidels say 45 

NUMBER VI. 

Testimony of Mosheim, ISTeander, Bingham, and other 
Eminent Church Historians. — What the Encyclopiedists 
say. — One hundred and forty-six others testifying in fa- 
vor of Baptists. — Remarks 54 



8 CONTEXTS. 

NUMBER VII. 

Immersion the Universal Practice the first two Centuries. — 
Testimony of Barnabas, Hernias. Justin Martyr, Ter- 
tullian, &c. — Case of Xovatian. — The first case on record 
when the subject was not Immersed was A. D. 250. — 
Other Witnesses 62 

XUMBER YIII. 

Immersion Changed into Sprinivling or Pouring. — The 
Mode declared indifierent by Rome in 1311. — Immersion 
the Common Practice of the English Episcopal Church 
in the reign of Edward YI. and Elizabeth, who were 
Immersed. — What Stuart, Bunsen, Erasmus, and "Wall 
say. — Weak Children allow^ed by the Establishment to 
be sprinkled in 1549. — Mr. Westley's action in 1732. — 
What the Canons Apostolical say — Testimony of Eusebius, 
Yenemia, Stillingfleet, and others. — Why Sprinkling was 
substituted fow Immersion 70 

NUMBER IX. 

The Mode Changed. — Why. — Testimony of Xeander. — 
Winer, Geiseler, DuEresne. Bishop Burnett, Lord Chan- 
cellor King, Knapp, &:c. — Deductions Drawn 78 

NUMBER X. 

The Design of Baptism. — Opinions of Drs. Boyer, Broadus, 
Boardman, &c. — Immersion only meets the end for which 
Baptism was appointed 85 

NUMBER XL 

Discussion of Baptizo. — Dr. Campbell's Testimony.— Pt. Wat- 
son against Socinians. — The Result of Prof. Curtis' Ex- 
amination. — Dr. Mell and President Shannon on the use 
of words employed to express the Application of Water, 
&c 94 



CONTENTS. 



NUMBER XII. 

Discussion of Baptizo Continued. — Dr. Puller quoted. — 
Pendleton on "pouring" a Man. — C. Taylor on the pour- 
ing out of the Spirit. — Dr. Mell on Materializing the 
Spirit. — What Neander says 106 

NUMBER XIII. 

What forty-eight standard Greek Lexicons say. — Thirty- 
three Learned Pedobaptist Authors testifying that the 
proper meaning of Baptizo is to Immerse. — Their Lan- 
guage Quoted 112 

NUMBER XIV. 

Testimony of the Greek Church. — Of the Various Trans- 
lations of the Bible. — Baptizo cannot mean to Sprin- 
kle. — Does dot mean to Purify. — Profane Writers and 
Fathers Quoted, &c., &c 120 

NUMBER XY. 

The Greek Prepositions — Stuart's and Blackstone's Eule. — 
Quotations given from Prof. Mell, Ewing, Hervey, &c.. 128 

NUMBER XVI. 

The Nature of John's Baptism. — What well-known Pedo- 
baptist Authors say. — It establishes what Baptism is. — 
The Testimony of Learned Pedobaptists. 140 

NUMBER XVIL 

The Baptism of our Saviour considered. — What Stuart, 
Eobinson, Bloomfield, Adam Clarke, Campbell, Mac- 
Knight, and others say as to the Mode. — Why Christ was 
Baptized 150 



10 COXTEXTS. 



NUMBER XYIII. 

The Baptism of the Eunuch. — What Calvin, Towerson, 
Doddridge, and Starke say. — Immersion clearly made 
out 159 

NUMBER XIX. 

The Baptism of Paul.— The Baptism of the Phiilipian 
Jailor 169 

NUMBER XX. 

Examination of Mark vii : 3-4. — What Beza Grotius, 
MacKnight, Meyer, Starck, Kitto, Olshausen and others 
say. — Dr. Hodges' Comments Examined 176 

XUMBER XXI. 

Examination of Komans vi : 3—5. and Colos. ii : 12. — 
Opinion of Stuart, Haldane, Wall, Tillotson, Clarke, 
and many others. — What the Fathers say 185 

NUMBER XXII. 

Metaphorical use of Baptize. — Luke xii : 50, Examined. — 
What Witsius, Doddridge and others say. — I Cor. x : 12, 
Examined. — What MacKnight, Whitby, Stuart, and 
others testify. — Eomans vi : 2^, and Col. ii : 12. — Addi- 
tional Kemarks 192 

NUMBER XXIII. 

The Baptism of the Three Thousand at Pentecost. — Dr. 
Eobinson's testimony as to the Sufficiency of Water for 
the Performance of the Eite. — Objections Considered, 
&c 205 

NUMBER XXIY. 

Objections against Immersion Considered 212 



CONTENTS. 11 

NUMBER XXV. 

Further Objections Considered. — The Circumstances of a 
Eite not Material. — Examples drawn from Scripture to 
Prove the Necessit}^ of Literal Obedience. — Pedobaptists 
Denounce Immersion. — Ez^amples Given 220 

NUMBER XXVI. 

"Who Baptists Immerse — "What Protestant Churches Teach 
in their Formularies Concerning the Nature of Baptism. — 
C. Taylor on Pictures. — Other Observations 230 

NUMBER XXVII. 

Immersion Established by Sufficient Evidence. — Two Hun- 
dred Pedobaptist Minister supposed to unite with the 
Baptists Annually. — TVhat Bishop Smith, of Kentucky, 
says. — Positive Institutions to be Faithfully Observed. — 
Extracts from Prof. Curtis 239 

NUMBER XXVIII. 

Yarious Objections urged against Baptists by their Oppo- 
nents Answered. — Some of the Great l^ames among Bap- 
tists. — Numbers and Learning cannot Sanctify Error, 
&c 249 

NUMBER XXIX. 

Concluding Eemarks. — What Chalmers, Baird, Newton, 
and Bancroft say of the Baptists. — The Testimony of 
Drs. Dermont and Ypeig. — Note 258 

Appendix 267 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 



NUMBER I. 



Brief History of the Change— First Doubts— Reading of Stuart, of 

Andover, &c. 

Inasmuch as I have been constrained, from a deep, 
conscientious sense of duty, to change my church 
relations, it may not be deemed immodest, but per- 
haps judicious, under the circumstances, for me to 
publish some of the reasons which influenced and 
absolutely compelled my action. Reared by Episco- 
pal parents, and sprinkled in infancy, it was several 
years after attaining my majority before I made a 
profession of religion. I united myself with the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, unhesitatingly pre- 
ferring the earnest Christianity of that Church to 
what I conceive to be the High Church proclivities 
of the Protestant Episcopal Church in North Caro- 
lina. I selected the Methodist Episcopal Church 
because I then agreed with it more nearly in doctrine 
than with any other, and because I felt very grateful 
towards it as the instrument under God of my con- 
version. I still cherish for it feelings of unrepressed 
kindness and profound gratitude. I have left its 



14 WHAT IS~BAPTISM? 

pale only because I could not longer remain, with 
the views I now entertain, and preserve my Christian 
integrity and independence. I was a thorough 
Pedobaptist, and thought the mode of baptism alto- 
gether immaterial, because I had only investigated 
the subject as thousands of intelligent men and women 
had done before me, and are daily doing, by confining 
my researches to one side. And here, par paren- 
these, let me remark, that two difficulties present 
themselves in the way of the investigator. In the 
first place he rigidly confines himself to the exami- 
nation of one side, and that is sure to be the side he 
has been influenced by education and example to 
adopt. How many persons in the various churches 
are familiar with the arguments introduced by the 
opposing parties upon the subject of baptism and its 
cognates ? How many, think you, are really In- 
formed as to the history of the various corruptions 
which have crept into the church, including the 
sprinkling of infants as well as believers? After 
an intimate acquaintance with hundreds of religious 
people, I cannot doubt that there are many who will 
be ready to censure me for having changed my eccle- 
siastical connection, and to suggest improper motives, 
who are profoundly ignorant of the entire question 
in dispute, only so far as they have been instructed 
by the pulpit harangues of their own preachers, and 
by certain Pedobaptist books which have been dili- 
gently distributed amongst them. I venture the 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 15 

assertion that there are many of them who would 
applaud what I have done, if they had been as pains- 
taking in the matter as 1 have been, and were fully 
cognizant of the arguments, evidences, and facts which 
a long discussion of the controverted subjects, extend- 
ing through generations, has evolved. 

In the second place, he sits down to read with his 
mind fairly teeming with prejudice. He does not so 
much search after truth as endeavor to procure facts 
and reasons to fortify and sustain him in his precon- 
ceived opinions. Such investigation (if you may so 
term it) is disingenuous, unfair, and ex parte, and 
merely results in his becoming more intensified in 
his prejudices, and more wedded to his inherited, 
hastily adopted, and unintelligent views. Others 
are like the distinguished and gifted Baptist Noel, of 
England, now a Baptist, but for sonietime leader 
and head of the evangelical party in the Established 
Church. He says : " During my ministry in the 
establishment, an indefinite fear of the conclusions at 
which I might arrive, led me to avoid the study of the 
question of baptism/^''' But whenever a person dares 
the perilous adventure, and after much thought, 
and careful and prayerful examination, has finally 
eliminated the truth from the tremendous mass of 
sophisms, perversions, and puerilities that has been 
thrown around it, and then is bold enough to act 
consistently with his own conclusions, and take his 

^Quoted by Dr. Fuller, of Baltimore. 



16 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

place decisively among the defenders of truth, he 
will be set upon instantly by all the theological 
^^ Trays, Blanches, and Sweethearts f his motives 
will be assailed, his character traduced, and he will 
be denounced as fickle and infirm. Minds incapable 
of patient and candid examination, will generally 
impute to another sinister motives in any change of 
religious opinion, however honest and irresistible the 
convictions may have been. He will be ridiculed as 
inconstant — as tossed about by every wind of doc- 
trine — as an enthusiast — as a fanatic — as deifying an 
ordinance, and possibly he may be even compli- 
mented with the appellation of fool. Such animad- 
version — such opprobrium has ever been freely be- 
stowed upon those who have had fairness enough to 
examine a controverted subject, not in the spirit of 
partisans, but with the candor of genuine lovers of 
truth, and then have had the moral firmness to act 
promptly and fearlessly upon the suggestions and 
convictions resulting from such an examination. 
But the servant of the Lord Jesus Christ should 
utterly disregard all such censoriousness. Conscious 
of his own honesty of purpose, and of the sincerity 
of his convictions, he should hold himself as really 
above those who would wound or harass him. Per- 
secutions, and bereavements, and trials, if borne 
with the meekness of a true disciple, have a salutary 
effect upon Christian life, and hasten its more com- 
plete developmento The man who can love hi^ 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 17 

"Enemies, and Bincerely pray for those who despite- 
fuHy use and persecute him, is really very superior 
to them in all that constitutes true nobility of char- 
acter—is very far above them in those graces and 
virtues which adorn and beautify human life, and 
make man resemble his Creator. A Christian may 
expect misrepresentation and obloquy. Did not a 
Mind and malignant carnality declare our Saviour 
Hnad ? Did it not call Him devil ? Did it not say 
Ithat He was a wine-bibber — a friend and companion 
<of puMi<^ns (wicked men) and sinners? Did not 
IfMs same earnality indulge its cruel proclivities 
when it mocked the eternal Jesus, and reviled and 
spit upon Him as He hung bleeding, suffering, dying 
upon the cross, and that, too, that such bloated car- 
nality might be eternally £aved ? Shall the disciple 
hope to escape ? Shall he hope to walk on roses 
whilst his Lord walked on thorns ? Shall he drink 
r ambrosial nectar when the Master had to drink 
" wormwood and gall ? '^ If,^' says Chrkt, ^^ they 
:tiave called the master of the house Beelzebub, much 
2more will they call them of his household. The 
^disciple is not above his master, nor the servant 
I above Ms Lord/^ Let the disciple, then, dare do 
liight. Let him leave the results with God. Let 
his fiMk be fastened firmly upon Christ — centered in 
Christ. He may expect Heaven's blessings to rest 
upon, and abide with him, so long as he studiously 
and sincerely endeavors to obey the Master's voice. 
A3 



18 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

So far from losing any of his spirituality, he has a 
right to expect to grow in grace daily, and to be de- 
veloped in divine life more rapidly than ever, be- 
cause he has done as he was commanded by his 
Redeemer and King; and it is a true test of disciple- 
ship, not only to take up your cross daily, but to 
keep the commandments of Christ. 

But to return from this long digression : I re- 
mained for years a firm, honest believer in sprink- 
ling, and in infant baptism : never once doubting the 
validity of my own baptism. As a minister, I de- 
fended with zeal Pedobaptist practice, and sometimes, 
not content with defence, ^^ carried the war into 
Africa/' by assailing the doctrines and usages of the 
Baptists. But during the latter part of the fall of 
1864, I commenced afresh my researches among 
Pedobaptist authors, impelled so to do by the in- 
roads which the Baptists were making upon my 
charge. Having commenced the work of examina- 
tion, (but, mark you, all on one side, and for the 
purpose of controversy,) I determined to prosecute 
my studies until I had become somewhat of an adept 
in the use of Pedobaptist weapons. It w^as, whilst 
carrying out this purpose at intervals, that the first 
semblance of doubt I had ever felt, dawned upon 
my mind. At first, certain concessions only had the 
effect to awaken surprise, accompanied by some sen- 
sations of unpleasantness. I resolutely continued to 
read authors on my side, until I fortunately secured 



WHAT IS BAPTISM"? 19 

a copy of Professor Moses Stuart's very learned 
work upon the philology of the controverted subject 
of baptism. I was induced to read this work be- 
cause a friend had told me of some admissions it 
contained. These admissions both annoyed and sur- 
prised me. The reputation of this learned Professor 
among Pedobaptist scholars and divines is so great^ 
that any concessions he may make may well create 
surprise in one so partially informed upon the sub- 
ject upon which he treated as I was. Dr. Eosser, of 
the Methodist Church, in his work on baptism^ holds 
this language concerning him : ^' The judgment of 
Professor Stuart^ as a Biblical critic,^ is of the highest 
reputation in the United States. ^^ This is certainly 
very high endorsement^ and yet^ without doubt^ judi- 
ciouslv bestowed. Of course, as Professor Stuart 
had written a work to defend the practice of the 
Congregationalists, and other Pedobaptist denomina- 
tionSj I did not expect him to surrender the whole 
subject under discussion, and in so many words 
admit that the Baptists were right and his denomi- 
nation wTong. Nor could I, nor any one, expect 
him so to lift himself above the tremendous influ- 
ences which education, and association, and denomi- 
national attachment throw around one, as to concede 
that in the philological discussion the Baptists had 
all the advantage — no one could expect that. Nay, 
if I had not been somewhat informed as to the char- 
acter of his work, I would not have expected any 
a4 



20 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

concessions whatever. But what was my surprise, 
when I met with such admissions as these^ and, bear 
in mind, from the ripest scholar and critic of this 
country — " the brightest luminary in the constella- 
tion of ^^ Calvanistic scholars. Says he, and I only 
quote a few of his admissions : 

^^But, enough. ^ It is/ says Augusti, ^ a thing 
made out/ viz., the ancient practice of immersion. 
^ So, indeed, all the imnters, who have thoroughly in- 
vestigated this subject, conclude. I know of no one 
usage of ancient times which seems to be more clearly 
made out. I cannot see how it is possible for any 
candid man, who examines the subject, to deny this.^'^ 

^' In what manner, then, did the churches of 
Christ, from a very early period, to say the least, 
understand the word baptizo, in the New Testa- 
ment ? Plainly J they construed, it as meaning im- 
mersion. 

^' For myself, then, I cheerfully admit that bap- 
tizo, in the New Testament, ivhen applied to the rite 
of baptisrn, does in all probability involve the idea, 
that this rite was usually perforDied by immersion, 
but not always.^' 

The reader will, perhaps, agree with me, before he 
is done with this series, that the ^' not always," of 
this last quotation, is an evidence of the force of 
prejudice, even in a matter of learning. 

*The reader will please particularly note this candid statement. He 
will see, before he gets through, how this plain historical truth has been 
denied by men claiming to be learned expounders of their faith. 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 21 



NUMBER II. 

More from Professor Stuart— Reading of Carson— Doubts— Fears — 
Trials— Convictions — Final Action — Purpose in View, 

I concluded my first number with some highly 
important quotations from the learned Stuart. I 
was not quite done with his valuable work. In ad- 
dition to what I have already quoted from him^ he 
states that he is " philologically compelled ^^ to say 
'' that the probability that baptizo implies immer- 
sion is very considerable^ and^ on the whole^ a pre- 
dominant one ; but it still does not amount to cer- 
tainty.'^ Subsequent investigations have assured me 
positively, that it does ^^ amount to certainty.'''^ At 
any rate, it seems to me, that if the •' probability '' 
that the word which Christ uses to express the act of 
baptism is a '^ predominant one/' and that it was so 
understood at ^^a very early period, to say the least," 
in the churches of Christy then it is prudent, safe, 
and judicious to be immersed. 

^^ Baptizo and its derivatives are exclusively em- 
ployed when the rite of baptism is to be designated 
in any form whatever J^ Those writers who mislead 

"* Baptizo just PS certainly implies immersion as the words so translated 
mean repent, believe, or be holy, 

a5 



22 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

their unlearned readers by lengthened disquisitions 
upon bapto, in which they claim that it means^ 
secondarily, to dye, to tinge, &c., would better learn 
from the accomplished Andover Professor that that 
word is never used with reference to the ordinance of 
baptism in all the New Testament. They can learn 
from Professor Stuart that the Greek word used is 
baptizo . 

He also quotes, with approbation, the following, 
by Brenner, a Roman Catholrc writer of vast learn- 
ing : " Thirteen hundred years was baptism geiie- 
rally and ordinarily performed by immersion under 
water.'^ 

" From the earliest ages of which we have any 
account, subsequent to the apostolic age, and down- 
ward for several centuries^ the churches did generally 
practice baptism by immersion.^' We shall learn, 
after a while, that immersion was the universal prac- 
tice, save in cases of extreme sickness. We shall 
see farther, that it was more than two hundred years 
after Christ before we find, in all extant writings, 
any case of baptism, other than by immersion. If 
the purest and best men are to be believed, this is 
the evidence that the writings of the fathers furnish. 
All attempts to create any other impression, betray a 
lamentable ignorance or a lamentable unfairness. 
But we will recur to this topic. 

Such are some of the concessions which I met 
with iu the work of Professor Stuart^ which I read 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 2S 

with exceeding care, taking notes. Up to this 
period of time I had never read a line upon the 
subject of baptism, from a Baptist author, save when 
quoted by some opponent. The work of Stuart set 
me fairly afloat upon the sea of doubt. For months^ 
long, painful, agonizing months, I steered about over 
the vast sea of speculation and doubt, one while 
tempted to direct my course that way, and then, 
almost induced to steer for this port. It was after 
intense suifering that I secured firmly a compass and 
rudder by which to direct my long-tossed barque' 
into a haven of quietude and rest. It is true, I was 
convinced by Stuart that in all probability the Bap- 
tists were right in claiming that the baptism of 
John, and our Saviour, and the apostles, and the 
primitive churches, was immersion; and still, if pos- 
sible, I did not wish to believe it to be my duty to 
be immersed. I read again and again certain Pedo- 
baptist authors^ to see if it were possible for me to 
remain as I was. It was so hard to surrender all 
my long-established views, it was so hard to brave 
an uncharitable public sentiment. I do not wonder 
at any sensitive person hesitating long before he 
ventures to act as I have been compelled to do. No 
man of honor and sensibility wishes to make him- 
self a target at which every low, vulgar traducer 
may spit his venom. After I had given Stuart a 
thorough reading, I next took up the great work of 

Dr. Carson, and before I had finished his remark- 
a6 



24 WHAT IS BAPTISM -? 

able work — a work from the pen of a thinker and 
scholar, ^^ a mere shred of whose capital has made 
some men, of small means, great, and some really 
great men, greater still ^^ — I was satisfied fully that 
the Baptists were right. But do not let the reader 
conclude that I was never again perplexed by fears 
and doubts. I was tried in this respect to within a 
month of my final action. In the course of my in- 
vestigations I read a large number of authors, not 
by any means confining myself to one side, now. I 
was resolved to find, if possible, a firm foundation 
upon which to plant my feet, and I was ready and 
anxious to read any thing that would, in any way, 
conduce to that end. I have read upon the baptis- 
mal controversy over seven thousand pages, between 
two or three thousand of which were from Pedo- 
baptist authors.'"' The result of my very anxious 
and careful investigations, extending through more 
than six months, is to find myself bereft of every 
pre-established opinion, and firmly persuaded that 
the only baptism of the Bible of God is immersion, 
and that infant baptism is an invention of man. 
The strongest evidence which any man can have is 
consciousness. That Bible doctrine which appears 
to my mind to be supported by the strongest evi- 

*I respectfully suggest to those wlio may be disposed to censure me, 
that they read as many pages as even a thousand, from Baptist writers, 
before they indulge themselves against me. Some attention to their 
Bibles would doubtless be of service to them. The violence with which 
I was assailed, leads me to make this remark. 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 25 

dence, is the existence of a Great First Cause. Next 
to this blessed truth, it seems to me that there is 
more in the Bible to prove immersion and believers' 
baptism than there is to establish any other doctrine. 
I am not conscious of having the faintest approxi- 
mation of doubt — even the shadow of a shade — with 
regard to these subjects. They, in the light of Di- 
vine Revelation, appear to my mind luminous and 
unmistakable as any truth whatsoever, save the one 
mentioned. This position has been reached, not 
after a hurried examination, and with facility, but 
after much reading, and prayer, and meditation, in 
spite of intense prejudice against the Baptists, and 
(there are many who know this to be so) in spite of 
the influences of education and long cherished opin- 
ions. I could not longer refuse to believe (accord- 
ing to all true principles of philological criticism 
and interpretation) that the only baptism recognized 
and taught by God is immersion, and that believers 
only are entitled to that ordinance. If I am in 
error, I am conscientiously so. To give up all the 
honest prejudices of my youth and manhood; to 
separate from my own church, which I have ever 
loved with the intense ardor of a loval and onrateful 
son ; to break off from my many dearly loved Metho- 
dist brethren, and to attach myself to a church in 
which I had but very few friends, and not a being 
who was connected with me by any earthly tie ; to 
renounce steadfastly the baptism (I so call it by way 



26 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

of courtesy and habit) which. I received in infancy ; 
to acknowledge^ before the world^ that for years 1 
had been teaching " false doctrine ;'^ and to expose 
myself to the shafts of unfriendly criticism on the 
part of good men^ and of inconsiderate or unprinci- 
pled worldlings — -to do these things taxed to the ut- 
most whatever of moral courage I possessed, and 
proved to me the sorest trial of my life, next to ihQ 
death of two dear children. And yet, painful and 
afflictive as the trial has been, I have not dared to 
regard expediency or predilection, prejudice or affec- 
tion, ease or poverty. I have heard the Master say- 
ing, " If ye love me, keep my commandments.^^ 1 
have read in the Scriptures of Inspiration, that ^^to 
obey is better than sacrilice,^^ and knovvdng that 
without obedience to the commands of Christ the 
Kedeemer, I could not possibly be saved, for He is 
the " author of salvation unto all them that obey 
him,^^ and firmly and sincerely believing that the 
only baptism which He ever instituted was the im- 
mersion of believers in water, I resolved to '^ arise 
and be baptized '^ without farther delay, determining 
to regard no obstacle, however huge its proportions^ 
to confer with neither flesh nor blood, but, denying 
myself, to take up my cross and follow my adorable 
Saviour, in the way of humiliation in which he 
walked. 

Only those v/ho have passed through similar trials 
of the mind^ can appreciate, really, the difficulties^ 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 27 

and doubts, and fears which I have had to encoun- 
ter. Like Booth and Carson^ JSToel and Pengillj, 
Judson and Remington^ Wiberg and Fuller^ Jewett 
and Shaver^ Hooper and Crawford, and hundreds of 
others, who, under God, have been called upon to 
transfer their church allegiance, my personal convic- 
tions " have been the fruit, not of custom and educa- 
tion,^^ but of patient, earnest, prayerful, anxious ex- 
amination and study. I have deliberately, and in the 
fear of Almighty God, weighed fairly and candidly 
the evidence and arguments on both sides, and in the 
face of the hereditary views to which I so blindly and 
tenaciously clung, I have had to go over to the side 
of those who take the Word of God as their only 
guide to the institutions which He has appointed for 
His churches. 

In the preparation of this series, I do not purpose 
to write a regular, systematic treatise upon Baptism. 
Nor do I think it necessary to enter upon a discus- 
sion of a great deal which properly belongs to the 
subject under consideration. My aim is much 
humbler. I think it right to place before the reader 
some of those arguments and facts which influenced 
and impressed me most whilst pursuing my course 
of investigation. I shall, therefore, not attempt to 
present x^hoJi I have to say in the methodical form 
which distinguishes most of the works I have con- 
§ulted, but shall lay the matter before the reader, for 
the most part, in a rather desultory way^ without 



28 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

any special effort at logical connection, or close con- 
secutive thought. My constant aim shall be to 
bring in review, before the mind of the reader, some 
of the chief points which caused such an unexpected 
revolution in my own doctrines and practice. 



WHAT IS BAPTISM t " 29 



NUMBER III. 

Important Testimonies from Eminent Scholars in the Lutheran, Ger- 
man Reformed, and Non- Conformist Churches, given in their own 
Language. 

In the course of my investigations^ nothing so 
astonished me as the many concessions made to the 
truth of Baptist principles and practice by the most 
illustrious scholars and divines belonging to Pedo- 
baptist theology. I purpose to quote some of this 
testimony^ and to give it in the language of the 
authors. I earnestly appeal to my friends— those 
ancient friends who have been '^ by adoption tried/^ 
and to the lovers of truth, in all churches, who may 
read these lines, to weigh honestly, and to ponder 
carefully, the statements and facts which will be pro- 
duced. If so, instead of censuring me, they wall 
rather apply the language of the wonderful Cole- 
ridge, (himself a Pedobaptist,) when he thus ex- 
presses himself: '' When the Baptist says : I think 
myself obliged to obey Christ scrupulously, and 
believing that he did not command infant baptism, 
but, on the contrary, baptism under conditions in- 
compatible with infancy — (faith and repentance) — 
therefore, I cannot with innocence, because I cannot 
in faith, baptize an infant at all, or an adult other- 



80 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

wise than by immersion '' — then continues this in- 
comparable genius, '' I honor the man and incline to 
his doctrine as the more Scriptural/^ 

Now the opinions of the worldwide famous au- 
thors and divines which I will collate, are repro- 
duced, that readers who have not hitherto had time 
or inclination to investigate the subject of baptism, 
may see how mighty truth has compelled them to 
utter testimony in favor of the Baptists, and that 
too when they were their inveterate opponents. I 
deem it necessary to pursue this course, because I 
know that comparatively few Pedobaptists are aware 
of either the number or character of the concessions 
which their own writers have made in regard to this 
important subject. Pedobaptist authors studiously 
withhold all such admissions from their readers. In 
this they do not evince much fairness, but considera- 
ble shrewdness. They not only withhold such infor- 
mation, but when others are inclined to give it pub- 
licity, they cry out at once, " unfair, unfair.^^ Be- 
fore we get through, this ruse of a wily adversary 
will be unveiled. 

After reading these testimonials, let the reader ask 
himself these questions : ^* AVhy should the great 
divines and writers of Pedobaptism make any con- 
cessions whatever? Why should they give forth 
such utterances unless constrained by candor and 
truth ? Why should the master spirits of the eccle- 
siastical w^orld be found testifying to the truth of 



What is baptism? §1 

Baptist principles, if those principles be not sound, 
judicious, and in accordance with the teachings of 
the Bible r 

And let me say here, if the reader should find 
difficulty in reconciling the concessions and testi- 
mony of great theologians with their daily practice, 
remember that many, perhaps all, of them experi- 
enced the same difficulty. But such inconsistency 
does not at all vitiate or impair the force of their 
individual or united testimony. Men of intelligence 
and candor are never known to turn witnesses 
against themselves, either before God or man, unless 
forced by the truth thus to act. 

Mark this : Every one of the writers 
kamed was an advocate of infant sprinkling 

— WAS A PeDOBAPTIST. 

The quotations are taken generally from the works 
of Carson, Curtis, Stuart, Mell, Hinton, Jewett, 
Pengilly, Booth, Pendleton, Wiberg, Fuller, Bailey, 
and from a little work entitled, "Way Marks.^^ 
Some I have copied from original sources, others I 
have taken from writings of less note than the above. 
There can be no sort of doubt as to the genuineness 
of these quotations. The authors who gave them, 
are of the highest Christian character. Besides, if 
they were corrupt enough to manufacture passages, 
or to so pervert or garble as to fail to give the sense 
of the authors they pretended to quote, does not the 
reader see that their opponents would be ready to 



8^ WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

expose tiiem ? In addition it can be easily ascer- 
tained by any one whether the extracts given from 
such writers as AVallj Baxter^ Calvin, Stuart, and 
many others, are true or false. 

Bearing in mind the very significant quotations 
already given from Prof. Stuart, let the reader atten- 
tively peruse the following somewhat curious items. 
I will only quote the most material points. In the 
manuscript of my book I have copied much more 
largely, but in the present series I have not space 
allowed me for extended quotations. I commence 
with the 

I. ADMISSIOXS OF LUTHEEAXS. " 

1. Maetix Lttt^er, the great Reformer and 
founder of the Lutheran Church. '' Taufe (bap- 
tism) is in the Greek called hajotisma ; in the Latin, 
mersio, that is when we totally dip anything in 
water, and it runs together over it. ^' ''•' According 
to the import of the word, we should immerse in 
water.'^ From Wiberg. 

^' Baptism is nothing else than the Word of God 
with immersion in water.^^ 

'^ I would have those that are to be baptized to be 
altogether dipped in water, as the word doth sound, 
and the mvsterv doth sio:nifv.'^ From Hinton. 

2. Grotil'S. '^ That baptism used to be per- 
formed by immersion, and not pouring, appears from 
the proper signification of the word,'' &c. 



,WHAT IS BAPTISM? 33 

3. ViTRiNGA. " The act of baptizing is the im- 
mersion of believers in water. This expresses the 
force of the word. Thus, also, it was performed by 
Christ and His apostles.^^ 

4. Venema. '^The word baptizein, to baptize, 
is nowhere used in the Scripture for sprinkling.^' 

5. Melancthon. '' Baptism is an entire action, 
to wit, a dipping and the pronouncing these w^ords, 
I baptize thee,'' &c. 

6. MiCHEALis. ^^The external action, which 
Christ commanded in Baptism, was immersion under 
water. This the word baptizo signifies; as every 
one who knows the Greek will answer for." 

7. Knapp. '' Immersion is peculiarly agreeable 
to the institution of Christ, and to the practice of 
the apostolic church ; and so even John baptized." 

8. BucHis^ER. " In the first times persons to be 
baptized, were immersed^ while at the present day 
they are only sprinkled with water." 

I could easily swell this list of Lutheran authori- 
ties. I have before me, already collated at least 
twenty other testimonies from eminent scholars and 
professors of the same church. Space forbids further 
enlargement. 

II. ADMISSIONS OF GERMAN REFORMED. 

1. RosENMULLER. ^^ The learned havc reminded 
us that on account of the emblematical meaning of 
baptism, the rite of immersion ought to have been 
retained in the Christian church." 



34 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

2. De Wette. " They were baptized, immersedy 
submerged. This is the proper meaning of the fre- 
quentative form baptOy to immerse. (John xiii: 16.) 
And so, was the rite according to Rom. vi : 4.^^ 

3. Olshausen. ^^ John also was baptizing in the 
neighborhood, because the Avater there, being deep, 
afforded convenience for immersion,^^ "In this pas- 
sage, (Rom. vi : 3-4,) we are by no means to refer 
the baptism merely to their own resolutions, or see 
in it merely a figure, in which the one-half of the 
ancient baptismal rite, the submersion, merely pre- 
figures the death and burial of the old man — the 
second half, the emersion, the resurrection of the 
new raan,'^ &c. 

4. Lange. This author is now deemed by ^]1 
schools of theology as the first commentator of the 
world. His "' Commentary on Matthew ^^ has re- 
ceived tlie praise of Episcopal, Methodist, and othqr 
religious editors, and is pronounced to be superior to 
any other extant. I quote a few passages from it : 
"^I indeed baptize you in (en) water,' [immersing 
you in the element of water,'') &c. 

" Die Taufe des Johannes ging noch nicht in die 
voile Tiefe:' On this the learned Dr. Philip Schaff, 
the translator, remarks : " A play on words with 
reference to the etymology of Taufe from teufen, 
tjiefen, i. e., to plunge into the deep, to submerge. 
With the same reference. Dr. Lange calls Christian 
baptiso^ ' die absolute Vertiefung,' which is e(][^uiv^i 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 35 

lent, in meaning, to the apostle's figure of burial 
with Christ : ' Therefore^ we are buried with Him 
by baptism into death/ '^ 

John baptized the Saviour. According to the 
above, it must have been by immersing him. Did 
our Saviour command his people to be baptized in a 
manner different from himself? If so, then is not 
"the apostle^s figure of barial with Christ" lost? 
Remember that Lauge is the latest and greatest of 
commentators. 

6. Dr. Philip Schaff. This writer is the 
author of two celebrated ecclesiastical histories, and 
ranks with the most eminent living scholars. He is 
a German, but a resident of the United States. His 
church histories have been endorsed by the Prince- 
ton Review^ Methodist Qiiarterly Reviev), Edinburgh 
Review, the American Presbyterian, Philadelphia 
Presbyterian, and other leading publications. What 
does he testify ? Hear ye him : " Finally, as it re- 
spects the mode and manner of outward baptizing, 
there can be no doubt that immersion and not 
sprinkling was the original, normal form For 
which the signification of the Greek words with 
which the rite was described declares." He proves 
this farther from John\s baptism, from the compari- 
sons in the New Testament, and finally, because, ^4t 
was the universal usage of the churches of antiquity 
to baptize by immersion *'' * '•' '^ and wet^ 



36 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

ting or sprinkling was allowed only in cases of 
urgent necessity, as with the sick and dying.'^ 

I have at hand ample material l^y which these 
quotations could be greatly enlarged. But I am 
compelled to forbear. I select only a few of those 
writers who are^ perhaps, better known to the mass 
of American readers. 

III. XOy-COXFOEMIST. 

1. EiCHARD Baxter. ^^It is commonly con- 
fessed by us to the Anabaptists, as our commentators 
declare, that in the apostles' time, the baptized were 
dipped over head in the water," &c. 

The reader has now before him the testimony of 
thirteen very learned Pedobaptist authors. They 
represent three different churches, and were staunch 
opponents of Baptists. In the next number other 
authorities will be added. 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 37 



NUMBEB IV. 

Important Testimonies Continued— AVh at the most Distinguished Pres- 
byterian and Episcopal Authors say. 

I propose to lay before the reader additional evi- 
dence in favor of the Baptists, drawn from the 
writings of the most famous scholars of the world. 

lY. ADMISSIONS OF PKESBYTERIANS. 

1. John Calvin. ^^ The word baptizo signifies 
to immerse, and the rite of immersion was observed 
by the ancient church. ^^ 

" Here we perceive how baptism was administered 
among the ancients, for they immersed the whole 
body in water.'^ Com. on Acts viii : 38. This is 
the testimony of the great founder of Presbyterian- 
ism* 

2. Thomas Chalmers. '' The original meaning 
of the word baptism is immersion '''' "'•'•'. We doubt 
not that the prevalent style of the administration in 
the apostles' days was by an actual submerging of the 
whole body under water.'' 

3. George Campbell. '^The word {baptizo) 
both in sacred authors and in classical, signifies to 
dip, to plunge, to immerse, and was rendered by 

B 



88 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

TertulHan, the oldest of the Latin fathers^ tingere^ 
the term used for dying cloth^ which was by immer- 
sion. It is always construed suitably to this mean- 
ing, ^^ If there is any abler Presbyterian Biblical 
critic than Dr. Campbell^ by all means discover his 
name. He ranks second to none. 

4. Geokge Hill. ^^ The apostle Paul, Eom. 
vi : 4-6, illustrates this connection (between baptism 
and forgiveness of sin) by an allusion drawn from 
the ancient method of administering baptism. The 
immersion in water of the bodies of those Avho werel 
baptized, is an emblem of death unto sin," &c. This 
is from an eminent divine and author, President of 
St. Mary^s College, St. Andrews, Scotland. 

5. Edinburgh Presbyteeian Review. In 
review of Dr. Alex. Carson^s great work on baptism, 
it declares that ^^ it is a fixed point universally admit- 
ted that haptizo signifies to dip,^ 

6. Edinburgh Encyclopaedia. ^^In the time 
of the apostles the form of baptism was very simple^ 
The person to be baptized was dir)j)ed/^ &c. 

7. Coleman. He is the author of a book of 
high merit, entitled " Ancient Christianity Exem- 
plified.^^ In it he says : '' In the primitive cliurch, 
immediately succeeding to the age of the apostles^ 
this (immersion) was undeniably the common mode 
of baptism/^ 

8. MacKnight. This very distinguished Bibli- 
cal critic, upon Eom. vi : 4, remarks : " Christ 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 39 

submitted to be baptized^ that is, to be buried under 
the water by John, and to be raised out of it again, 
as an emblem of his future death and resurrection. 
In like manner, the baptism of believers is emble- 
matical of their own death, burial, and resurrection/^ 
This is the precise position of Baptists. 

9. Robert Haldane. In his comment upon 
Rom. vi : 4, this learned author remarks : " The 
rite of baptism exhibits Christians as dying, as 
buried, and as risen y/ith Christ.^^ He speaks of the 
candidate " going into the water/' and coming out of 
it, which shows hov) he understood the matter. 

10, LiGHTFOOT. '^ Some complain that this rite 
has not been preserved in the Christian church, as if 
that might detract something from the real nature of 
baptism, or might be called an innovation, since 
aspersion of water is employed in the place of im- 
mersion.'^^ 

V. ADMISSIOISrS OF EPISCOPALIANS".. 

1. Dr. Wall. Hear what the ablest defender of 
infant baptism has to say about the mode of baptism.. 
He maintains that immersion v/as the practice of the 
primitive chin^ch, and says : " This is so plain and 
clear, by an infinite number of passages, that as one 
cannot but pity the weah endeavors of such Pedo bap- 
tists as ivould raaintain the negative of it ''*' *•*' '*'. 
^Tis a great want of prudence, as well as of honesty, 
to refuse to grant to an adversary what is certainly 
trucj and may be proved so J' 



40 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

2. Dr. Whitby. This most learned of Episcopal 

commentators says : " It being so expressly declared 
here (in Rom. and Col.) that we are buried with 
Christ in baptism by being buried under ivater ^' * 
and this immersion being religiously observed by all 
Christians for thirteen centuries and approved by our 
Church, and the change of it into sprinUingy^ &c. 

3. Bingham. He says immersion " was the origi- 
nal apostolic practice^ so it continued to be the uni- 
versal practice of the church for many ages.^^ 

4. Prof. Porson. He w^as probably the fore- 
most Greek scholar of England. He said to the 
celebrated Dr. Newman : '' The Baptists have the 
advantage of us.^^ '^ He fully assured me/^ says 
Dr. N., '^ that baptizo signifies a total immersionJ^ 

5. Dr. Samuel Johnson. He contends that the 
Romanist has as much right to take the cup from 
the laity as Protestants have " to substitute sprink- 
ling in the room of the ancient baptism." 

6. Bishop Jeremy Taylor. ^^ The custom of 
the ancient churches was ?io^ sprinkling but mme?'- 
sion, in pursuance of the sense of the icord (baptizo) 
in the commandment and example of our blessed 
Lord. Now this v>^as of so sacred account in their 
esteem^ that they did not think it laicful to receive 
him into the clergy ivho had only been sprinkled in 
his baptism." 

7. Lord Chancellor King. This celebrated 
author in his Avork on the ^^ Primitive Church," 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 41 

says : ^' It seems to me evident that their (the early- 
Christians) usual custom was to immerse^ or dip the 
ivhole body J' 

8. Bishop Pateick. This learned commentator 
says, in speaking of the primitive Christians : " They 
were immersed all over and buried in water J^ 

9. Bishop Bubnett. Here is the testimony of 
this learned historian and critic. ^' They (the primi- 
tive ministers of the gospel) led them into the water, 
and laid them down as a man is laid in the grave, 
then they raised them up again/^ 

10. Bishop Smith, of Kentucky. ^^We have 
only to go back six or eight hundred years, and im- 
mersion was the only mode, except in cases of sick- 
ness. It was not only universal^ but was primitive 
and apostolical. No case of baptism by any other 
mode is on record for the first three hundred years' 

11. Archbishop Tillotson. ^^They were im- 
mersed in the Holy Ghost, as they who were buried 
with water, were overwhelmed and covered over tvith 
water y which is the proper notion of baptism.^^ 

12. Abraham Eees. This learned editor of the 
Cyclopaedia bearing his name, says : " In the primi- 
tive times, this ceremony (baptism) was performed 
by immersion * '^ according to the original sig- 
nification of the word/^ 

13. William Trollope. In his " Anal. Theol.'' 
he says ^Hhe Christian convert ^^ was baptized by 



42 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

^^ tlie immersion of the body, in imitation of Christ^s 
death and burial/' etc. 

14. Bishop Sherlock. ^^ Baptism or our im- 
mersion into watefj according to the ancient rite of 
administering it, is a figure/' &c. 

1 5. GiSDLESTONE. This gifted commentator says 
that '^ primitive believers '' were " baptized by com- 
plete immersion in the water/'' 

I might extend these quotations for columns. 
But I forbear. I v/ill give two other extracts and 
close the list of Episcopal authorities who have testi- 
fied precisely as Baptists would have them. The 
first is from 

16. CONNYBEARE AND HOWSON. Thcse twO 

learned divines published only a few years ago their 
critical and able work on the '' Life and Epistles of 
St. Paul " In it they give utterance to the follow- 
ing matured opinion : " It is needless to add that 
baptism was (unless in exceptional cases) adminis- 
tered by immersion^ the convert being plunged be- 
neath the surface of the v/ater to represent his death 
to the life of sin, and then raised from his momen- 
tary burial to represent his i-esurrection to the life of 
righteousness." They regret that '' the discontinu- 
ance of this original form of baptism,'' should have 
^' rendered obscure to popular apprehension some 
very important passages of Scripture." This is 
surely a lamentable confession ! By corrupting the 
ordinance, even ^"^ important" parts of the Bible are 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 43 

rendered too obscure for the great mass of immortal 
beings to understand. They say farther^ that Rom. 
vi : 4 ^^ cannot be understood unless it be borne in 
mind that the primitive baptism was by immersion.'' 
And yet .people will read this^ and hundreds of other 
similar admissions from the pious and learned of the 
world who were 7io Baptists, and will still continue 
to practice and defend the Popish rite of sprinkling 
or pouring, and that too without any Scripture autho- 
rity, (as the Romanist, Bishop Trevan, says,) and in 
face of the fact that such innovations and corrup- 
tions render void and ^^ obscure" many ^^mportant" 
parts of God's precious word. Before I do that, 
may my tongue cleave to tlie roof of my mouth, and 
my right hand forget its cunning ! The next proof is 

17. Dk. Arthur P. Stanley. This eminent 
author is Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the 
University of Oxford. He has a very high reputa- 
tion, and v/as offered the Archbishopric of Dublin 
upon the death of Whateley. In his ^^ Lectures on 
the History of the Eastern Church,^' published 
within the last few years, and delivered in 1861, he 
thus testifies : '^ There can be no question that the 
original form of baptism — the very meaning of the 
word— was complete immersion in the deep baptismal 
waters ; and that for at least four centuries, any other 
form was either unknown, or regarded, unless in the 
case of dangerous illness, as an exceptional, almost a 
MONSTROUS case.^^ He says farther, "that whilst the 



44 WHAT IS BAPTISM ? 

Greek church still rigidly adheres to immersion, the 
Roman Catholic Church, doubtless in deference to the 
requirements of a Northern climate^ to the change of 
manners J to the convenience of cu$tom, has wholly 
ALTERED THE MODE, preferring ^> * ^f a few 
drops of water -^ '-'^ for the threefold plunge into 
the rushing rivers, or the wide baptisteries of the 
East/^ He says : " The Greek Church is the only. 
living representative of the Hellenic race^ and speaks 
in the OTil^ living voice which has come down to us 
from the apostolic age/^ And yet this church, 
which, as Stanley says, ^^ reads the whole code of 
Scripture, old as well as new, in the language in 
which it was read and spoken by the apostles'^ — this 
same Greek Church practice only immersion as bap- 
tism, and " the most illustrious and venerable por- 
tion of it, that of the Byzantine Empire, absolutely 
repudiates and ignores any other mode of administra- 
tion as essentially invalid.'' 

The Alexandria Churchman recently endorsed Dr. 
Stanley as having high qualifications for early church 
history. His opinion above should have great weight 
with his brethren. 

In the next number other authorities will be 
added, drawn from the standard writers of other 
denominations. 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 46 



NUMBER V. 

Important Testimonies Continued— What Distinguished Methodists, 
Romanists, Quakers, and Infidels say. 

The reader may well conclude that the evidence I 
have already given^ impressed me very greatly whilst 
pursuing my search after truth. I had never sup- 
posed that such an array of evidence could possibly 
be gathered from Pedobaptist sources in favor of 
the practice of the Baptists. But so it is^ and "the 
half has not been told/^ I proceed to cull a few 
additional extracts from the published works of 
eminent divines : 

VI. ADMISSIONS OF METHODISTS. 

1. Dk. Adam Clarke. This excellent and learned 
man has written a commentary which is widely 
known. Before quoting from it, I premonish the 
reader that Dr. Clarke, in his '^ Theology/^ flatly 
contradicts himself, as it appears to me. He says 
that the '' general practice of the Jewish and Chris- 
tian Church was to pour or sprinhle,^^ In this, he of 
course was wrong, as is seen from the concurrent 
testimony of all the very learned men of Europe. 
Dr. Clarke is probably the only writer of respectable 



46 WHAT IS BAPTIS31? 

learning who ever contended for such an absurdity. 
A few sciolists like Dr. S. Miller have probably set 
up such a claim, but none of the truly wise and pro- 
foundly learned of anv school of theology or of any 
churchy ever contended for that which the univocal 
testimony of history opposes. In his commentary I 
find the following : 

On Romans vi : 4, he says : '^It is probable that 
the apostle here alludes to the mode of administering 
baptism by immersion,'^ 

On 1 Cor. XV : 29, he says: **They received 
baptism as an emblem of death, in voluntarily going 
under the ivater and coming up out of the water.'^ 

On Col. xi : 12, he says: '^Buried with hiui by 
^baptism/^ &c.—-^^ alluding to the immersions prac- 
ticed in the case of adults, wherein persons appeared 
to be buried under water.^' 

I might leave this without an additional remark, 
but I deem it proper to add a word of comment. If 
the ^^ general practice^^ was really '^to pour or 
sprinkle,^^ then Dr. C's. remarks upon the above 
passages are exceedingly curious. There is not a 
solitary scholar of repute who ever claimed that 
haptizo meant to pour or sprinkle. Let the reader 
examine the passages in his Bible upon which Dr. C. 
has commented as above; and then let him read 
what Dr. C. says concerning them, and then let him 
ask this question ; '^ Would an inspired apostle de- 
liberately address letters to various churches, and 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 47 

malce direct reference to hnmerBion as baptwn^ unless 
that mode was common among tliem f^ Nay^ would 
not these passages^ Dr. Clarke himself being judge, 
be downright nonsense to these churches if ^^ pouring 
or sprinklings^ were baptism ? The symbolic signi- 
ficance of baptism would be lost, if immersion were 
not the practice. Dr. C admits that Paul, in his 
letters to the churches at Rome, at Corinth, and at 
Colosse, alludes to immersion^ and of course not to 
pouring or sprinkling. If Dr. Clarke in his com- 
ments above is right, it y/ould be very hazardous for 
any man to deny that immerson is taught in the New 
Testament, for in PauFs letter to the Corinthians, he 
expressly affirms, according to Dr. C. that they tvere 
immersed, 

2. John Wesley. This wonderful man of God 
published a treatise on baptism in 1756, in which he 
takes strong ground in favor of sprinkling or pour- 
ing. It v/as an effort to foist upon the church a 
custom, vv^hich I will hereafter establish was simply 
of Popish origin. In his treatise occur such pas- 
sages as, " baptism is performed by washing, dipping,, 
or sprinkling /^ ^^it is not determined in Scripture 
in which of these ways it should be done ;" ^Hhere 
is no clear proof of dipping in Scripture,^^ &c. 
Now this last declaration does not correspond very 
well with this declaration in his " Notes on the New 
Testament,^^ when commenting on Eom. vi : 4, he 
says : '^^ Buried with Him by baptism,^^ is an ^^allu- 



48 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

sion to the ancient manner of baptizing ly immer- 
donJ^ The idea of the Apostle Paul grayely writing 
to the Romans about immersion symbolizing the 
burial of a person in or by baptism^ when there is 
no ^' clear proof ^^ that the Romans ever knew of such 
a practice as immersion. Very absurd, Mr. Wesley ! 
Why, according to his own comment, there is "clear 
proof of dipping'^ in Romans, and, therefore, in the 
Scriptures, for he says "Paul, in the passage, ^buried 
with Him by baptism,^ alludes to the ancient man- 
ner of baptizing by immersion.'^ That Mr. Wesley, 
in 1736, held firmly to the belief that immersion 
only was the primitive, apostolic mode, I think will 
appear satisfactory to the reader from the following 
passage in his diary, and from his practice. In his 
Journal, Feb. 21, 1736, he records the following: 
"Mary Welsh, aged 11 days, was baptized according 
to the custom of the first chiirch, and the church of 
England, hy immersion ; the child was sick then, but 
recovered from that hour.^^ Again, in his Journal 
of May 5, 1736, he makes the following entry: "I 
was asked to baptize a child of Mr. Parker's, second 
bailiff of Savannah ; but Mrs. Parker told me, 
^Neither Mr. P. nor I will consent to its being 
dipped!' I answered, ^If you certify that your 
child is weak, it will suffice (the rubric says) to i^our 
water upon it.' She replied, ' Nay, the child is not 
weak, but I am resolved it shall not be clipped.' 
This argument I could not confute. So I went 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 49 

home and the child was baptized by another/^ This 
shows Mr. W^s. practice as well as belief. 

3. Joseph Benson. The popular oomraentator 
on Rom. yi : 4, remarks : ^^ ^ Therefore, we are buried 
with Him/ alluding to the ancient manner of bap- 
tizing by immersionJ^ This author, like his distin- 
guished associates, Wesley and Clarke, may practice 
sprinkling, and still, like them, he is forced by the 
very language of Scripture to testify that immersion 
was the ancient baptism. 

YII. ADMISSIONS OF KOMANISTS. 

1. Bishop Bossuet. ^^We read not in the Scrip- 
ture that baptism was otherwise administered than 
by immersion. We are able to make it appear, by 
the acts of councils, and by the ancient rituals, that 
for thirteen hundred years baptism was thus adminis- 
tered throughout the whole church, as far as pos- 
sible.^^ 

2. Bishop Trevan. He says to the Episcopa- 
lians, ^^But without going any farther, show us, my 
lords, the validity of your baptism by Scripture 
alone.'' '' Jesus Christ in the Bible ordains that bap- 
tism shall be conferred not by pouring water on the 
heads of believers, but by believers being plunged 
into the loater. The word baptizo, employed by the 
Evangelists, strictly conveys this signification, as the 
learned are agreed.'' 



m WHAT IS BAPTISM^ 

3. Leo I. Hesavs: ^"The regular admimstra- 
tion of baprism'' was by '"trine immersion.'' He 
was Pope A. D. 440 

4. PijPE Zachaeias. He speaks of immersion 
as the only practice. He flourish eel A. D. 741. 

5. Archbishop MAUBrs. He speaks of ^-tbe 
baptized coming ujj out of the fontJ^ He lived A. 
D. 847. The historian Milner -ay^ he wn>. nnp of 
the foremost scholars of his time. 

6. Erasmus. This wonderful scholar quotes 
CVprian as saying, " Teach all nations, dipping them 
in the name/^ &c. 

7. Bishop Pamelius. " To be baptized is properly 
speaking J to be immersed, or plunged.** He lived 
A. D. 1587. 

8. Dr. Joh:s Lixgarb. In his ^* Antiquities of 
the Anglo-Saxon Church," he says of the }>erson 
baptized, that ^' he was plunged into the water * * 
and he emerged.'^ 

9. Cardinal Wiseman. -VTe retain the name 
of baptism, ichich means immersion, though the rite 
is no longer performed by it. TTe cling to names 
that have their rise in the favor and gloiy of the 
past.'' 

10. Bishop Kenrick. Cardinal Wiseman pro- 
nounced him a man of '•' varied and extensive learn- 
ing."' On Matt, iii : 6, he has this marginal render- 
ing : "^Immersed, This is the ob^'ious force of the 
term.'' 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 51 

11. Archbishop Cullen. This eminent prelate 
S'djSy that '^ immersion was certainly only practiced 
by the primitive church/^ and that ^^ it was changed 
by the authority of the church which has the power 
of loosing and binding/ and but for this power 
Vested in the churchy the ordinance could not have 
changed. Therefore^ ^" '*" in the matter of bap- 
tism^ the various sects are dependent upon^ and 
derive their authority from us^ for the change of the 
ordinance from immersion to pouring and sprink- 
ling.^' He says farther^ that the Baptists^ ^^ alone of 
all the sects, are consistent. Denying the authority 
of tradition, and the power vested in the church of 
^binding and loosing/ they adhere strictly to the 
teachings of Christ, and the letter of the New Testa- 
ment.'^ He says furthermore, that the Baptists 
"^^ alone compose the true church, '^ unless "the church 
has the right and power of ' binding and loosing.' '' 

yill. ADMISSIOI^S OF QUAKEKS. 

1. J. J. GuRNEY. He says, " the baptism of 
John and the apostles'' was by '^ iimnersion in 
water." 

2. William Penn. "There is not one text of 
Scripture to prove that sprinkling in the face was 
water baptism, or that children were the subjects of 
water baptism in the first times." 

IX. ADMISSIONS OE INEIDELS. 
1. Renan speaks of John's baptism as ^4otal im.-' 
mersion." 



52 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

2. ScHEXKEL tries to depict the feelings with 
which our Saviour "walked down into the waves of 
baptism at the hands of the Baptist." 

It would be an easy matter to extend yet farther 
these testimonies. The amount of evidence which I 
have gathered from various sources is so great^ that 
the difficulty in preparing this series is in condensing 
and selecting. I am compelled to omit so much that 
is truly valuable, that I hope at an early day to be 
able to publish the whole in a pamphlet of some 
seventy-five pages. I have diligently collated the 
testimonies of j^robably two hundred of the wisest 
and most learned of all Pedobaptist writers. 

If fair-minded readers will ponder the astounding 
array of concessions from Presbyterians and Luthe- 
rans, Catholics and Episcopalians, Methodists and 
Quakers, German Reformed and Infidels — conces- 
sions made by their representative men in different 
ages — they need not be any longer deceived by the 
bold assertions, crude sophisms, and unscholarly 
glossings of blinded sectarians. The opinions of 
such authors as I have produced, are worth a 
thousand times more in determining the truth, than 
the positive asseverations of authors who write, not 
really so much to defend or ascertain truth, as to 
extend the influence and make good the practice of 
their particular sect. 

Let the reader, then, take heed before he joins those 
who mock at Baptists and call them ignorant bigots, 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 63 

when they tenaciously cling to that practice which 
has the united suffrage of the most illustrious scholars 
among all denominations of Christians, both in 
England and America^ and on the continent of 
Europe, in this and every age. Whilst the ablest 
scholars of the world have agreed that baptizo means 
dip^ immerse, and that immersion was the ancient 
baptism, a few obscure zealots, blinded by early asso- 
ciation and education, and not by any means remark- 
able for sound or varied erudition, have striven to 
create another impression. It has been well asked, 
" Why is this mystery hidden from the vnse and 
prudent, and revealed to babes f^ 



54 WHAT IS BAPTIS3I? 



NUMBER Yi. 

testimony of Moslieirn, Ncander, Bingham, and otiier Eminent Church 
Historians— ^hat the Encyc]opa?dists sny— One hundred and forty-six 
others testifying in favor of Baptists — Pieiniirks. 

In the course of my investigations^ I was led to 
inquire into the general voice of history with refer- 
ence to baptism. What do the great Pedobaptist 
historians testify in regard to this important rite? 
I will lay before the reader some of the evidence, 
and let him bear in mind that the following testi- 
mony is gathered from those V\'ho were anything else 
but Baptists in either theory or practice. I com- 
mence with 

EMIXEXT CHUPwCH HISTOEIAXS. 

1. MosHEiM. He says of John's baptism that 
the disciples ^^ were initiated into the Kingdom of 
the Redeemer by the ceremony of immersion or bap- 
tism.^' In the first century, he says, " the sacrament 
of baptism was administered without the public 
assemblies, in places appointed and prepared for that 
purpose, and was performed by an immersion of the 
whole body in the baptismal font.'' He says, in the 
second century '^ persons that were to be baptized ''-' 
i'j o ^,Yeve immersed under water," 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 65 

2. Tenema. ^^It is witlioiit controversy, that 
baptism in the primitive church was administered 
by immersion into water, and not by sprinkling. 
The essential act of baptizing, in the second century, 
consisted, not in sprinkling, but in immersion into 
water /^ 

8. GriESELER. ^^ For the sake of the sick, the rite 
of sprinkling ivas introduced J' Ah, introduced ! 
Does this not shovv^ that something else was the prac- 
tice? 

4. Neander. '' In respect to the form of bap- 
tism, it was in conformity with the origincd import of 
the symbol, performed by immersion/^ 

5. HOSPINIANUS. " Christ commanded us to be 
baptized, by whicli word it is certain immersion is 
signified/^ 

6. Stackhouse, in his ^\History of the Bible," 
says : " Several authors have shown and proved that 
this immersio7i continued as much as possible to be 
used for thirteen hundred years after Christ,''^ 

7. Bingham. '^ As this (immersion) was the 
original apostolic practice, so it continued to he the 
universal practice of the church for many ages, upon 
the same symbolical reasons as it v/as first used by 
the apostles/^ 

8. Bowers, in his History of the Popes, says: 
" Baptism by immersion was nndoubtedly the apos- 
tolical practice, and was never dispensed with by the 
church, except in cases of sickness." 



66 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

9. DuPIN. Speaking of third century, he says : 
" They generally dipped them thrice in water/^ 

10. Dr. Philip Schaff. " Immersion, and not 
sprinkling, was unquestionably the original, normal 
mode of baptism. ^^ 

11. Waddington. ^^ The ceremony of immersion 
(the oldest form of baptism) was performed in the 
name of the three persons of the Trinity.^^ 

12. Caye. ^^ The party to be baptized was wholly 
immerged, or put under water, which was the almost 
constant and universal custom of those times,^' to 
wit, the days immediately succeeding the apostles. 

E^^CYCLOP^DISTS. 

Whilst diligently and anxiously examining the 
subject of baptism and its cognates, my attention 
was directed to the opinions of certain eminent Pedo- 
baptist encyclopaedists. I append some of those 
opinions which will be found to be no less truthful 
than suggestive. They were no haptistSy mark you. 

1. ENCYCLOPiEDiA Beitanxica. " The custom 
of sprinkling children, instead of dipping them in 
the font, '"' '•' has so far prevailed, that immer- 
sion is at length quite excluded, '"' '-'^ '"^ Having 
observed that at Geneva and some other places bap- 
tism was administered by sj)rinkling, they thought 
they could not do the church of England a greater 
piec^ of service than by introducing a practice,^^ &c. 

2. New American Encyclop-^dia. "The form 
of baptism; atfirst^ was^ according to most historianii; 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 67 

by immersion ; but, as Christianity advanced in 
colder climates, the more convenient mode of sprink- 
ling was introduced J' 

3. ENCYCLOPiEDiA EccLESiASTicA. " It is evi- 
dent that during the first ages of the church, and for 
many centuries afterwards, the practice of immersion 
prevailed. '^ * '^ Except in the above cases 
(sickness or at death,) the custom was to dip or im- 
merse the whole body/^ 

4. Edinburgh Encyclopaedia. ^^In the time 
of the apostles the form of baptism was very simple. 
The person to be baptized was dipped in a river or 
vessel.^^ 

5. KiTTo's CvcLOPiEDiA. ^' The whole body 
was immersed in water.^^ 

6. Brande's Encyclopedia. ^^ Baptism was ori- 
ginally administered by immersion. At present, 
sprinkling is generally substituted.^^ 

I have thus presented only a small fraction of the 
evidence in my possession drawn from the most reli- 
able and learned Pedobaptist sources. That the 
reader may form some idea of the immense number 
of Pedobaptist authors Avho have made important 
concessions in favor of the principles and practices of 
Baptists, (and that too whilst opposing them as a 
denomination,) I have concluded to recapitulate the 
names — or the most of them. The reader will per- 
ceive that nearly all the great theological names are 
embraced in the enumeration. I do not designedly 



58 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

mention any of those already quoted from. The list 
is as follows : Grotius, Witsius^ Beza^ Gurtlerus, 
Buddeus^ Salmasius, Fritsche^ Augusti, Brenner, 
Free Inquiry^ Bretschneider, Paulus^ Rheinard^ Rost, 
Schleusner^ Scholz, Bloomfield^ Edingburgh Presby- 
terian Review, Alstediiis, Tholucl^ Winer, Guerieke, 
Rheinwald, Hahn, Von Coelln, Zanchius, Poole, Dr. 
Samuel Clarke, Whitfield, Hagenbach, Casaubon, 
London Quarterly Review, Von Gerlach, Rosen- 
muller, Matthies. Gataker, Martoratus, Salmasius, 
Heidanus, Zanehius, Estius, Pictitus, Minter, Kuinol, 
Starke, Du Fresne, Stroth, Gregory, Reynolds, Tow- 
erson, Bede, Usher, Pearce, Hammond, Fell, Stilling- 
fleet, Locke, Saurin, Jacobi, Petavius, Selden, Aqui- 
nas, Maurus, Alcuinus, Tischendorf, Thiele, Dod- 
dridge, R'cholson, Barnes, Wells, Scott, Tyndal, 
Burkitt, Wolfius, TroUope, Body of Learned Di- 
vines, Sadolet, Frith, Photius, Micsehlis, Koppe, De 
Wette, Damascenus, Photius, Mauratori, Wicklif, 
Curcellssus, Diotati, Protestant Church of Saxony, 
H utter, Knatchbul, Markland, Brenton, Leusden, 
Reitz, Deylingius, Junckherrott, Storr, Ewald, Wha- 
ley, Mastrieht, Morus, Confession of Helvetia, Mag- 
deburg, Centuriators, Keckermannus, Vossius, Beo- 
son, Mede, Altmannius, Burmannus, Le Olerck, 
Piscator, Estius, Ypeij and Dermont, Beausobre, I. 
G. King, Camerarius, Castellio, Daille, Meyer, Hoad- 
ley, Newton, Westminister Assembly of Divines, 
€ranmer, Scudder, Manton, Bengellius, Goodwin, 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 6§ 

John Edwards, Leighton. Jaspis, Frankius, Turre- 
tin, Jortin, Superville, Peter Martyr, Braiinus, Boy, 
Cajetan, Daveiiant. Qiienstedt, Barrovv', Watts, and 
Kirk. 

Now, here are no less than one hundred and forty- 
Bix distinguished authors and scholars, (and all not 
given,) who have in some way testified to the truth 
for w^hich Baptists so earnestly contend. Some of 
these writers make concessions directly as to the 
mode ; some testify indirectly in their comments on 
certain passages of Scripture that immersion was the 
Bible mode; but all have made admissions v/hich can 
be used with damaging eifect against their own prac- 
tice. When I met with this vast and imposing array 
of learning, is it a matter of surprise that I, or in- 
deed any teachable person, should be fairly posed by 
the weight of authority, and should begin to scru- 
tinize narrowly the position I occupied, and to 
Seriously doubt the validity of my own baptism? 
And so it was. For never had I supposed that 
really the truly learned men, whose reputation was 
co-extensive w^ith letters, had ever admitted so much 
which Baptists maintained. I had heard people so 
often assert that the learned of the v/orld were 
against the Baptists, that I had quietly, but most 
ignorantly, adopted tliat viev/. But when I began 
to search in earnest to ascertain on which side the 
weight of evidence really lay, to my utter astonish- 
ment, I found more than two hundred of the most 



60 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

illustrious of all Pedobaptist authors conceding that 
for which Baptist martyrs have died, and for which 
Baptists are maligned and persecuted even to this 
day. Never before has so much learning made such 
fatal admissions to its own cause, or done so much 
for that of its opponents. 

I have not as yet referred to the testimony of 
lexicographers. I design quoting from them when 
I come to examine into the meaning of baptizo — the 
word which settles the mode. In my next I will 
occupy the reader's attention with the historical evi- 
dence in favor of immersion. This examination will 
place before him also a succinct history of sprink- 
ling. This part of the investigation not only greatly 
interested me^ but had its proper influence in leading 
me to a radical change of views. It is more than 
sixteen months since I followed the example of my 
Master, and I can assure the reader that all my theo- 
logical reading since, and I have not been idle, has 
but tended to deepen my convictions of the truth of 
Baptist principles, and to increase the joy I feel in 
the consciousness of duty performed. 

Perhaps at this point it may be judicious for me 
to indicate the probable range of the discussion in 
the subsequent numbers of this series. I have 
already intimated the subject matter of the next 
number. After that, I shall give haptlzo an exami- 
nation. In doing so, I shall present the opinions of 
Greek lexicographers^ the testimony of the most 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 61 

famous divines, the evidence of Greek writers, and 
the earliest authors after apostolic times, together 
with the evidence to be gathered from the various 
translations of the Bible. I shall then examine into 
the mode of John^s baptism ; into the baptism of 
^ our Saviour, the eunuch, the jailor, and Paul ; the 
baptism of pots, and tables ; the baptism at Pente- 
cost. I shall also discuss the meaning of Romans 
vi, and Col. ii, and will give the reader an array of 
probably not less than fifty eminent Pedobaptist 
authors, who take the same view of these passages 
that is taken by all enlightened Baptists. I shall 
also notice the nature of positive institutions; wilL 
reply to some objections urged against immersion 
and the Baptists ; and will conclude the series by 
summing up the evidence, and offering some reflec- 
tions growing out of the discussion of so interesting 
a subject. Such is the general outline. If I should 
be spared to pursue this line of discussion, I hope 
those who may accompany me along the route will 
not only be edified and pleased, but will agree with 
me, that after such an amount of evidence, after so 
many curious facts in favor of the Baptists, I could 
not possibly, as an independent, conscientious man, 
have done otherwise than I have. 



C2 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 



NUMBER YII. 

Immersion the Uniyerpal Practice the first two Centuries— Testimony of 
Barnabas, Hermas, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, &c.— Case of Novatian— 
The first case on record when the subject was not Immersed was A. D. 
230— Other Witnesses. 

I purpose in this number and the following num- 
bers, to present such facts and evidence, as when 
grouped together, shall furnish us with at least an 
outline of the history of the change from immersion 
to sprinkling, after the former had been so generally 
practiced for thirteen hundred years. We will com- 
mence our investigations with the first extant writer 
after the canon of Scripture w^as closed. 

Barnabas, who is supposed by learned men to 
have been PauFs companion, says in speaking of 
baptism : '^ Happy are they, who, trusting in the 
cross, go down into the icaterJ*^ He repeats the idea. 

Hee:mas, supposed to be the recognized fellow- 
laborer of Paul, says : '' I have heard from certain 
teachers that there is no other repentance except that 
when we go down into the iimier^^ &c. 

JusTix Mabtye, who flourished A. D. 140. He 
says : '' We bring them to some place where there is 
water, and they are baptized by the same w^ay of 
baptism by which we'y^ere baptized^ for they are 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 63 

washed {en to udati) in the water/' &c. Upon this 
passage De. Wall^ the great Pedobaptist^ thus 
remarks : " This is the most ancient account of the 
way of baptizing, next to Scripture ;. and shows the 
plain and simple way of administering it/^ He else- 
where (see Episcopal authorities in a previous 
number) tells what that way was — by immersion. 
He says it is dishonest to deny it. Reeves^ the 
learned translator of Justin, says : '' ^Tis evident 
from this place of Justin, and that of TertuUian, 
that ponds and rivers were the only baptisteries or 
fonts the church had for two hundred years/^ 

The Peschito Syeiac Version, the oldest ex- 
tant, and which was made certainly in the third, if 
not, as some suppose, in the second century, and in 
the country of the apostles, where both Greek and 
Syriac Avere well understood — -this Version trans^ 
lates baptizo into a Syriac term, which, according to 
Castell, Michaclis, Buxtorf, Beza, and Greenfield, 
eminent lexicographers, means invariably and only 
to immerse. 

Teetullian, who lived at the latter part of the 
second century, and who is pronounced by Eusebuis 
to be '^ one of the ablest Latin writers,^^ says : '^ We 
are immersed three times,^^ &c. ^' John dipped in 
the Jordan/^ " We are immersed in water/^ 

'' Symmachus, in his Greek version of the Old 
Testament, made about A. D. 200, and published in 
Origen^s ^ Hexapla,^ translates the Hebrew tavaug. 



64 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

which Gesenius defines, to immerse, submerge, by the 
Greek haptizoJ^ 

Origen, who lived in the third century, and was 
eminent for learning, says : '' We were buried with 
Christ, for we were buried with him, according to 
the apostle, l)y baptism,^^ 

Let the reader bear in mind, that up to this period, 
we have in all extant writings from the apostles, 
not the faintest trace — the slightest intimation of any 
such practice as sprinhling or pouring. Immersion 
w^as the universal practice, until among other corrup- 
tions, the idea was adopted by some, that baptism 
was absolutely essential to salvation. In this baleful 
idea originated the first instance of sprinkling on 
record. 

According to Dn. Wall, (high Episcopal autho- 
rity,) the case of Novatian, which occurred about 
the middle of the third century, was the first instance 
of clinic (or bed-ridden) baptism. Cornelius, bishop 
of Rome, describes the case in his letter to Fabius, 
bishop of Antioch. He says : '' Being aided by the 
exorcists, Avhen attacked with a dangerous disease, 
and being supposed at the point of death^ he received 
it (the substitute for baptism) being circumfused in 
the couch itself, where he was lying ; if, indeed, it is 
p)roper to say that such a man has received it,^^ (bap- 
tism.) Yf e know in what estimate Novatian's clinic 
baptism was held by the Christian churches after- 
wards. He unexpectedly recovered, and w^as afler^ 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 65 

wards chosen in a ^^ schismatical way ^^ to the vacant 
See of Eome^ but was rejected^ and for this reason : 
" All the dergy and a great many of the laity were 
against his being chosen presbyter^ because it was 
noiS' latvful (they said) for any one that had been 
baptized in his bed, as he had been, to be admitted to 
any office of the clergy.'^ (Wall's History, page 2, 
chapter ix, § 2.)''^ This account is the same as that 
given by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, 
written about A. D. 315. 

Calistus Nicephorus, in his well known Greek 
Ecclesiastical History, seems to speak disparagingly 
of Novatian^s being circumfused or poured around. 

After Novatian had been ^^ poured around/^ which, 
remember, was somewhere about A. D. 230, or 
according to most writers, about A. D. 250, clinic 
baptisms ^YeYe practiced in cases of extreme sickness^ 
when death was imminent. The idea prevailing 
that baptism was essential to salvation, very sick 
.people were ^^rantized,^' sprinkled, or ^'perikythe- 
ized," circumfused, as immersion (genuine baptism) 
could not be resorted to. Hence, Baronius remarks, 
that "tliose who were baptized upon their beds ivere 
not called Christians, but clinics.''^ Not very long 
after the so-called baptism of ISTovatian, Magnus, a 
country presbyter, wrote to Cyprian, Bishop of Car- 

* It is proper to add, that in the account of Eusebius, there is no word 
in the original which means baptism. The word used is PerihjtJieist 
which means *' helng 2-)oured around.^' 



6^ WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

thage, to determine this question : ^^ Whether per- 
sons baptized (bv sprinkling or pouring) were to be 
regarded as legitimate Christians, inasmuch as they 
were not baptized by bathing, but by affusion?" 
Xow it is necessary to detain the reader prith 
Cypriax's reply, as he has been called ^^the father 
of sprinkling," and as his testimony is relied upon 
by certain Pedobaptist authors. I rely upon the 
translation of the learned Dr. Sears, who says : 
^^ Cyprian is not prepared to give a decisive answer, 
but expresses his opinion, and says each one must 
settle this question for himself. His own views are 
stated thus : ^ When there is a pressing iiecessity, 
with God^s indulgence, the holy ordinances, though 
outwardly abridged, confer the entire blessing upon 
those who believe.' " Dr. Sears says he gives Mean- 
der's translation. 

I have before me a translation by another hand 
which is almost identical. WalFs translation is bad, 
and obscures the meaning. Dr. Sears asks some 
pertinent questions. Let the reader attend to them. 
He asks : '^ Could all these remarkable circumstances 
have exisi^d, if the zvhole church regarded sprinMing 
as apostolical in its origin, and consequently o? equal 
authority zoith immersion? Could Magnus have 
proposed such a question ?" Let the reader remem- 
ber that the point of inquiry was, ought persons to 
be regarded as '' legitimate Christians " if they had 
not been baptized by immersion, but only '^ per- 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 6f 

fused f^ Dr. Sears asks^ ■' Could Cyprian have 
given such an answer as he did^ if aifusion was the 
recognized practice, or duly authorized by the apos- 
tles f^ The learned Doctor continues, '^ Why did 
not^,;fche practice and tradition of ihQ church satisfy 
Magnus ? Why did not Cyprian bring it up in the 
reply ? Why, in his long argument to show the 
validity of s]jrinhling, did he not attempt to prove it 
from the practice of the primitive church, or from 
the New Testament, either directly or indirectly ? 
The case required such a defence, and Cyprian felt 
it/^ " He resorted to the Old Testament, and to the 
nature of purification. To these, these alone, and 
nothing else, did he appeal.'^ Cyprian admits that 
affusion is an " abridgment ^^ or '' compendium " of 
the original authentic rite, and justifies its use only 
in a case of " pressing necessity/^ and when '^ God's 
indulgence" is granted. Dr. Sears asks : '' If sprink- 
ling was a Divine ordinance, what need of any 
^ urgent necessity/ or (w^iat is still more strange) 
'Divine indulgence/ in order to make it pass?'' 
Surely, if God has instituted a rite for every believer 
to observe, it does not require pressing necessity or 
Divine indulgence to sanction its performance. 
Cyprian admonishes Magnus that those who on 
account of sickness had been ^^ perfused " instead of 
being " bathed in salutary v/ater," as one translator 
gives it, must not, upon their recovery, be induced 
to ^^ be baptized," supposing that the abridged rite, 



68 WHAl" IS BAPTISM? 

the aspersion was not sufficient. It is evident that 
Cyprian regarded haptizo to be something more than 
^^ perfusion/^ or he would not have warned them 
against being baptized, but against being r^-baptized. 

Let us now ascend the stream of time from 
Cyprian. Let us see^ if we find sprinJding and 
pouring generally used^ or used at all, save in cases 
of sickness. 

Cyrill, who flourished in the fourtli century, in 
speaking of the baptism of Simon, says : " The body, 
indeed, both went down and came up, but the soul 
was not buried with Christ, nor was it raised.'^ I 
have before me a longer passage to the same eiFect^ 
in which he speaks of '' sinking down three times 
info tJie water^ and again emerging.^^ 

The Apostolical Coxstitutioxs. thoudi not of 
apostolical origin, are as old as the fourth century. 
They speak of '^ immersion^ the dying with, the im- 
mersion, the rising with Christ.^^ 

Epheem, a writer of the fourth century, speuks 
of Christ beins: " immersed in a small river.'^ 

Basil, successor to Eusebius as Bishop of Csesa- 
rea, and who lived in the fourth century says, " the 
bodies of those baptized are as if Intried in the 
waterT 

Gregory, Bishop of Xyssa, and autlior of the 
Nicene Creed, says that, '' he who is baptized into 
water is 2vJwUi/ tcet,^^ He wrote in the original lan- 
guage of the apostles, and gives to haptizo the mean- 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 69 

ing for which Baptists contend. Let the reader 
mark this ! 

Ambrose^ Vv^ho lived also in the fourth century, 
says : '' Thou wast immersed— ih^i is, thou wast 
huried,^^ He says baptism " is a similitude of death 
while thou sinJcest under — and risest again, there is a 
similitude of the resurrection/^ 

Augusti:n'e, the most celebrated of the Fathers, 
speaks of persons being ^^ immersed/^ 

Cheysostom, w^io flourished at the close of the 
fourth century, speaking of baptism, compares it to 
a burial J and speaks oi '^ sinking do ion in the loater,^ 
and of being '' Jiid all at once^^ and of being ^^ bap- 
tized and emerging/^ 

Socrates, the historian, speaks of a " paralytic 
Jew, receiving baptism w^ith sincere faith, being 
taken up from the pool of the baptistery ,^^ &c. 
Speaking of another case in the fifth century, he says 
the bishop ^^ having directed the pool of the baptis- 
tery to be filled, led the Jew to it, in order to baptize 
him." 

Leo, a Roman pontiff, in the fifth century, says 
^' the true immersion resembles the three days huricd^^ 
&c. But without w^earying the reader with farther 
testimonies drawn from writers in different centuries, 
I will proceed in the next number to lay before him 
the testimonies of scholars and writers of the highest 
authority, mostly of a later time. 



70 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 



XmiBER A^III. 

Immersion Changed into Sprinklilig or Pouring— The Mode declared 
indifferent by Rome in 1311 — Immersion the Common Practice of the 
English Episcopal Church in the reign of Edward YI, and Elizabeth, 

\ who were Immersed— What Stuart, Bunsen, Erasmus, and Wall say- 
Weak Children allowed by the Establishment to be Sprinkled in 1549 — 
Mr. Wesley's action in 1732 — What the Canons Apostolical say — Testi- 
mony of Eusebius, Yenema, Stillingfleet, and others— Why Sprinkling 
was substituted for Immersion. 

In this number I vrill conclude my observations 
upon the history of immersion, and will add the 
testimony of some of the best Pedobaptist authors 
relative to the chaDge made in the mode of baptism. 
It surelv becomes a matter of interest to understand 
luliy the change was made, if change there has been. 
I will first give the testimony of the Edinburgh 
ExCYCLOP^DiA, edited by the accomplished savan, 
Sir David Brewster. *' The first law for sprinkling 
was obtained in the following manner : Pope Stephen 
II, being driven from Rome ''*' ''•' in 753, fled to 
'> V Prance. While he remained there, the monks 
of Cressy '•' '•'' consulted him whether, in case of 
necessity, baptism performed by pouring water on 
the head of the infant v'ovJcl be laicful, and Stephen 
replied that it would. But though the truth of this 
fact has been allowed, '•' '•" yet 2?ouring or sprink- 
ling was admitted only in cases of necessity. It was. 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 71 

not till 1311 that a council held at Ravenna declared 
immersion to be indifferent. In this country , (Scot- 
land,) however, sprinkling was never practiced in 
ordinary cases until after the Keformation ; and in 
England, even in the reign of Edward YI/'*'' immer- 
sion was commonly observed/^ ^^Erom Scotland 
this practice made its way into England, in the reign 
of Elizabeth, but was not authorized by the Estab- 
lished Church/^ 

Professor Stuart. '^ We have now collected 
fkcts enough to authorize us to come to the following 
general conclusion respecting the practice of the 
Christian church with regard to ^the mode of bap- 
tism, viz : that from the earliest ages of which we 
have any account subsequent to the apostolic age, 
and downward for several centuries^ the churches did 
generally practice baptism by immersion,^' He says 
the '' only exceptions'^ were ^^ cases of urgent sick- 
ness, or other cases of immediate and imminent 
danger, when ir/imersion could not be practiced^' 
He says that pouring and sprinkling, which "in 
particular cases had now and then been practiced,^^ 
began to be " gradually introduced and became at 
length quite common.^^ To this testimony I add 
that of Chevalier Bunsen, a scholar and statesman 
of great ability and learning. He thus writes: 
" The Western Church commenced her career under 
the guidance of Rome, with so7ne freedom of tJioughf. 

* Edward VI, and Elizabeth were both immersed^ as the record shows. 



72 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

She abolished together with adult ba2Jtism, its symbol, 
immersion^ and introduced sprinhling in its stead/^ 

The Church of England practiced dipping exclu- 
sively longer than did the Continental churches. 
That great scholar, Erasmus, says : ^'With us (the 
Dutch) they have the water poured on them ; in 
England they are dippedJ^ This was Avritten A. D. 
1530. Dr. Wall says that in the early history of 
the Established Church, " the offices or liturgies did 
all along '*' '*'" "''^" enjoin dipping^ without any 
mention of pouring or sprinkling. In 1549 excep- 
tions were made in favor of weak children.^^ Sprink- 
ling began to prevail about 1550. (See Wall ^[11, c 
9.) He also tells how the exception in favor of 
'' weak children " was abused. He says : ^' It being 
allowed to weak children (though strong enough to 
be brought to the church) to be baptized by affusion, 
many fond ladies and gentlemen first, then by de- 
grees the common people, Vv^ould obtain the favor of 
the Priest to have their children pass for iveah chil- 
dren too tender to endure dipping in water. Espe- 
cially if some instance really were, or were but 
fancied or framed, of some child's taking hurt by 
it.'' This is what the great defender of infant bap- 
tism says. We see here how corrupting of God's 
ordinance leads to lying and deceit. Although such 
lying frauds wxre connived at by some unscrupulous 
'^ priests," it is well known that even as late as 1732, 
a minister in the Establishment could not administer 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 73 

baptism except by immersion unless the child were 
declared to be too delicate to submit to the rite. I 
refer the reader to what Mr. Wesley said, as recorded 
in a previous number. I have seen in the possession 
of J. A. Egerton, Esq., of Warrenton, N. C, a copy 
of the liturgy of the Church of England, published 
in 1714. The rubric instructs the minister as fol- 
lows: ^^And then naming it after them (if they shall 
certify him that the child may well endure it) he 
shall dip it in the icater discreetly and warily, say- 
ing,'^ &c. Dr. Wall, in speaking of the Westmin- 
ster Assembly substituting pouring and sprinkling 
for immersion, holds this language : '' They could 
not remember that fonts to haptize in had been 
always used by the primitive Christians, long before 
the beginning of Popery, and ever since churches 
were built ; but that sprinkling, for the common use 
of baptizing, was really introduced (in France first, 
and then in other Popish countries) in times of 
Popery.^' He says, " that all countries which have 
never regarded the Pope^s authority still practice 
dipping,''^ The Greek or Oriental Church has never 
acknowledged the Pope^s sway. Professor Stuart 
remarks : " The mode of baptism by immersion j the 
Oriental Church has always continued to preserve. 
They call the members of the Western (Roman) 
churches sprinkled Christians by way of ridicule and 
contempt. They maintain that haptizo can mean 
nothing but immerge ; and tliat baptism^ hy sprink- 



?4 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

ling is as great a solecism as immersion by aspersion/^ 
Dr. Stanley confirms this in his ^^ Eastern Church."* 
So well and universally established was immersion,- 
during the first fi3ur hundred years, that in the fourth 
century it was decreed by the "authority of the 
^Canons Apostolical/ if a bishop or presbyter 
baptized by any other way than immersion ^ * * 
he should be deposed." 

EusEBius, Bishop of C^esarea, A. D. 315, says, 
that "baptism was administered to those on beds of 
sickness by sprinkling or pouring ; in other cases it 
was at this time by immersion^ Did not Eusebius 
know what was the practice of his times ? 

Venema in his Ecclesiastical History, after stating 
immersion was the primitive mode, and the practice 
of the second century, says : " To the essential rite 
of baptism in the third century pertained immersion^ 
and not aspersion, except in cases of necessity^ and it 
was accounted a half-perfect baptism.^^ 

Bishop Stillixgfleet. " Rites and customs 
apostolical are altered — as dipping in baptism." In 
this connection I will introduce another passage from 
Prof. Stuart. He says the idea ^^that the mode of 
baptism was one of the adiaphora of religion, i. e._, 
something unessential to the rite itself," " sprung up 
in the bosom of a church superstitiously devoted," 
&c. He says this idea thus originating in a super- 

*S€e his testimony quoted in a previous number. 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 75 

stitlous church, "gradually increased until '^ all 
Catholics, except those of Milan, admitted it. He 
says farther that Protestants " have also acceded to 
the same views/^ Reader, if you love truth, ponder 
well this admission. 

Prof. Feitsche, in his Bib. Theo., says : " With 
infant baptism, still another change in the outward 
form of baptism was introduced, that of sprinkling 
with water, instead of the former practice of immer- 
sionJ' 

TuRRETiNUS. " Plunging was changed into sprink- 
ling.^^ 

Matthies. "That this rite has been changed is, 
indeed, to be lamentedJ^ 

FoRMEY, in his Ecclesiastical History, says candi- 
dates "Avere dipped,^^ but "when they administered 
baptism to clinics (bed -ridden persons) they made use 
of simple sprinkling.^^ This, he says, was at the 
close of the second century. 

Petavius, says, ^'immersion is properly styled 
baptism, though at present we content ourselves with 
pouring water on the head.^^ He says thi$ is " not 
haptism.^^ 

Chamierius, says: ^^ Immersion of the whole 
body was used from the beginning, which expresseth 
the force of the word baptize. '^ ''^ It was after- 
wards changed into sprinkling.^^ 

Salmasius. " The clinics only, because they were 
confined to their beds, were baptized in a manner of 



76 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

which they were capable.'' He says Novatus, ^^ when 
sick, received baptism '^ by having water ^^ poured 
upon the ivliole hody f^ ^^'oeing perichytlieiSj he- 
sprinMed, not hajjtistheis, haptized,^^ 

Pamelius. " Whereas the sick, l)y reason of 
their ilhiess, could not be iimnersed or plunged 
(which properly speaking, is to be baptized^ they 
had the saving water poinded upon them, or were 
sprinkled with it. For the same reason, I think, the 
custom of sprinlding now used, first began to be ob- 
served by the Western Church (Romish,) namely, on 
account of \\\q tenderness of infants, seeing the bap- 
tism of adults was now very seldom practiced/' 
Here w^e have testimony wdiich shows that by cor- 
rupting the ordinance of baptism so as to allow 
infants to receive the rite, you open the way for 
another stupendous corruption, to wdt, the gradual 
substitution oi sprinklmg for immersion^ which alone 
is baptism according to Christ's own appointment. 

Grotius. '^The custom of p)ouring or sprinkling 
seems to have prevailed in favor of those that Vv^ere 
dangerously ill^ and were desirous of giving them- 
selves up to Christ, v/hom others called clinics. See 
the Epistle of Cyprian to Magnus." 

Von Coelln. '' Baptism was by immersion ; 
only in cases of the sick was it administered by 
sprinkling. It was held necessary to salvation ex- 
cept in cases of martyrdom/' 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 77 

Eheinwald. "Baptism was administered by 
immersion^ only in cases of necessity by sprinkling.'^ 

But I must reserve yet other authorities for an- 
other number. I wish the reader to be put in pos- 
session of the testimony of the most eminent Pedo- 
baptists relative to the origin of pouring and sprink- 
ling. He wi]l see that they also testify specifically 
to the fact that immersion was the primitive apostoli- 
cal mode^ and that it has been changed. 



f8 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 



NUMBER IX. 

The Mode Changed— TVhy— Testimony of Neander, Winer, Geiseler, Du 
Fresne, Bishop Barnett, Lord Chancellor King, Knapp, &c.— Deduc- 
tions Drawn. 

I desire to detain the reader with other important 
evidence which establishes that the mode of baptism 
has been changed^ and ivhy the change was made. 

Neaxdee. ^^Onlv with the sick was there an ex- 
ception/^ in regard to immersion. 

Winer. '' Affusion was at iSrst applied only to 
the sicJc^ but was gradually introduced for others 
after the seventh centuryy and in the thirteenth 
became the prevailing practice in the west.* But 
the Eastern (Greek) Church has retained immersion 
alone as valid.^^ 

Geiseler. " For the sake of the sicJcy the rite of 
sprinkling was introduced.^^ This author is quite 
famous through his able church history. Historic 
investigation has been his speciality — above you have 
his judgment in the matter. Who will appeal from 
it? 

Du Feesne. " From the custoui of baptizing by 
pouring or sprinkling the sick, who could not be im- 

* England for instance. 



WHAT l^ 3BA?f ISM? 70 

mersed, (which, is properly baptism^) was introduced 
the custom which now prevails in the Western (Ro- 
man) Church/^ 

Bishop BurnetTj (Episcopalian.) ^^ The danger 
of dipping in cold climates may be a very good 
reason for changing the form of baptism to sprinh- 
lingJ^ The distinguished prelate gives up that the 
^^form of baptism ^^ has been '' changed." 

Dr. Towersojs^. ^' The first mention we find of 
aspersion in the baptism of the elder sort was in the 
case of the clinici^ or men who received baptism 
upon their sick beds J' He says the '' lawfulness o^ 
any other baptism than by immersion will be found 
to lie in the necessity there may sometimes be of 
another manner of administering it." This writer 
was an Episcopalian. 

Sir John Floyer. '^ The Church of Eome hath 
drawn short compendiums of both sacraments : in 
the eucharist they use only the wafer, and instead of 
immersion they introduced aspersion. ''^ * * ^ 
I have given now what testimony I could find in our 
English authors to prove the practice of immersion^ 
from the time the Britons and Saxons were baptized 
till King James' days, when the people grew peevish 
with all ancient ceremonies^ and through the love 
OF NOVELTY, and the niceness of parents^ and the 
pretence of modesty^ they laid aside immersion.'' 
This writer was an Episcopalian, and has written a 



80 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

work on the ^^ History of Cold BatluDg/^ Professor 
Stuart quotes him with approbation. 

Dr. E. ^Yetha:^!. ITe says " immersion was for- 
merly the ordinary way of administering the sacra- 
ment of baptism/^ ■•^ '^ ^^Xot only the Catholic 
churchy but also the ^:>r^toi(i^c? reformed cliurches 
have altered this primitive custom in giving the 
sacrament of baptism^ and novr allow of baptism by 
pouring or sprinkling water on tlie person baptized. 
Nay, many of their ministers do it now-a-days by 
filliping a wet finger and thumb over a chikl's head, 
or by shaking a 2cet finger or two over the child, 
which is hard enough to call a baptizing in any 
sense.'' This author is a Romanist, and is surely 
an impartial witness. 

LoED KiXG. ^* Though imraersion was their 
usual custom, yet perfusion or sprinkling was not 
accounted unlawful; but in ca.s^.§ of necessity^ that 
was used as in dlnlc laptism. which was, when 
sicTc persons, whose death they apprehended, were 
baptized in their beds/' " It is true, indeed, this 
baptism was not generally esteemed as perfeetj as the 
more solemn baptism ; for whicli reason it was a 
custom of some churches not to advance anv to cleri- 
cal orders who had been baptized in bed by pouring 
or sprinkling." Bear with me, reader, whilst I ask 
a question or two. If pouring or sprinkling were 
really of apostolical origin, why all this hesitancy — 
this pleading of necessity — ^this refusing to promote 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 81 

those who had only been sprinkled? The rule 
seems to have been no immersion no ordination. If 
pouring or sprinkling constituted valid baptism why 
were not all candidates baptized in that way? Why 
reserve that form of administration for the very sick 
and the dying ? Now if apostolical^ then pouring 
must be valid^ and if valid, icliy not give it to all f 
If our Saviour truly instituted sprinkling, wdiy not 
sprinkle all — why restrict it ? 

Dk. Geokge Knapp. ^^ Immersion remained 
common a long time after, (the apostles,) except that 
in the third century^ or perhaps earlierj the baptism 
of the sick {haptisma dinicorum) was performed by 
sprinkling or affusion/^ lie says a ^^controversy 
arose concerning it, so unheaed of was it, at that 
time, to baptize by simple affusion,^^ 

Dr. Store, Professor in the University of Tubin- 
gen, says that immersion " had been so received ^^ by 
the ancient church, that ^^ baptism of the sick^^ by 
'' the affusion of water ^^ in ^^ the third century,^^ 
'' was by some entirely rejected, by others far less 
esteemed than the baptism of the rest * '•'" who 
had been hatliedJ^ He laments that immersion has 
found a substitute in sprinkling and pouring. 

Deylingius says that immersion v/as '^ alone in 
use when the apostles lived,^^ but after their death, 
" the baptism of clinics became known, when disease 
and other extreme necessity prohibited immersion/' 

Valesius. " Rufinus rightly translates this per^ 



82 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

fusuTTiy (poured about.) For those wlio were sick 
were baptized in bed^ since they could not be im- 
mersed by the priest^ they were only poured [profun- 
debantur) with water. Therefore^ baptism of this 
kind was not citstoviary, and was esteemed imperfect 
as being what apj)eared to be received by a man 
laboring under delirium, not willingly, but from 
fear of death. In addition, since baptism properly 
signifies immersion, a pouring of this sort could 
hardly have been called a baptism. Wherefore clinics 
(for thus they were called who received baptism of 
this sort) were forbidden to be promoted to the rank 
of the Presbytery J by the canon of the council of 
Neo Caesarea." 

Baronius, ^' Those who were baptized upon 
their beds were not called Christians, but clinics,'' 

I have thus, at much length presented a mass of 
evidence of overwhelming weight. It should carry 
conviction to every mind. If what these very 
learned authors say will not satisfy the reader that 
immersion was the primitive mode of baptism, then 
he is not surely open to conviction. I feel fully 
warranted, from the character of the witnesses, and 
the nature of their evidence, to draw the following 
conclusions : 

1. That Divine authority never appointed 
nor sanctioned any practice other than immersion. 
If you hesitate at this, read over again the testimo- 
nies presented in this and the preceding numbers. 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 68 

2. That learned and discreet Pedobaptists as-* 
sert that the mode of baptism has been changed — 
that for immersion, pouring or sprinkling has been 
substituted. 

3. That the change was by man, and not by 
God. 

4. That sprinkling or pouring, therefore, is an 
institution of man and not an ordinance of God. 

5. That pouring was first substituted for immer- 
sion by the authority of man to meet the cases of 
clinics, or sick persons. 

' 6. That it was resorted to on the plea of necessity, 
and was regarded as an imperfect baptism, and 
therefore a curtailment of the institution of God. 

7. That this change or innovation only made its 
way gradually, and for centuries was confined exclu- 
sively to the sick. 

8. That pouring was never adjudged to be equally 
valid in all cases before A. D. 1311. 

9. That even after the Council at Ravenna, in 
1311, had so decreed, immersion almost universally 
prevailed in Europe, in England, in Scotland, and 
throughout the Eastern church. In the latter it 
prevails universally at this day. 

10. That those who now practice pouring or 
sprinkling, act without Divine warrant, use a cere* 
mony unauthorized by the Great Head of the church, 
who alone has the power to appoint or to repeat posi- 



84 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

tive institutions, and are teaching for doctrines the 
mere commandments of men. 

So^ at least^ I am justified in asserting, if the 
scores of writers from whom I have quoted knew 
that concerning which they affirm. They are men 
of the highest reputation for scholarship, are rigid 
Pedobaptists, and exerted a large influence in their 
day. Among those quoted from and relied upon 
are theologians, commentators, and historians. They 
all tell the same story — testify to the same truths. I 
think the considerate reader will be fully assured 
that immersion was the original apostolic practice. 
If so, will he not receive that rite if already he has 
not obeyed the positive command of his Saviour? 

^' He that hath my commandments and keepeth 
TiiEM, he it is that loveth me.^^ 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 85 



NUMBER X. 

The Design of Baptism— Opinions of Drs. Boyer, Broadus, Boardman, 
&c.— Immersion only meets the end for which Baptism was appointed. 

Having in the previous numbers^ at muck length, 
collated the statements of the most learned scholars 
and divines, with reference to the now controverted 
question of the way in which the rite of baptism 
was administered in apostolic times, and in the cen- 
turies immediately succeeding, before entering upon 
the discussion of certain points of conspicuous impor- 
tance, I think it both necessary and judicious to here 
offer some brief remarks upon the general design of 
baptism. By pursuing this course, we shall be better 
qualified to appreciate the discussion which is to 
follow. 

It is conceded by all religionists, except the 
Quakers, that our Lord and Saviour instituted the 
ordinance of baptism. But, unlike the other ordi- 
nance that He appointed for His church on earth, 
baptism is to be performed but once, and it is there- 
fore a question of vast importance, that when per- 
formed, it should be in accordance w^ith His appoint- 
ment, i. e., that it be rightly done. '^ A duty which 

God has expressly commanded, and wliich needs tp 

# 



86 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

be ^performed but once, surely ought to be done 
rightly, so that no doubts of having obeyed that 
command could ever arise to harrass the mind, or 
distress the conscience/^ '•'" 

The ordinance of baptism was to be of perpetual 
duration — to remain a permanent rite of the church 
until the close of the dispensation of grace. It is 
scarcely necessary to detain the reader with any argu- 
ment to establish that which is so uniformlv acknowl- 
edged. But, lest some persons should take advan- 
tage of the omission, I remark 

1. That in the great commission wdiere the ordi- 
nance is commanded, there is no intimation given 
that it is to be limited in the smallest degree. In- 
deed, throughout the Xew Testament, wherever this 
rite is referred to, we find that there is nothing to 
justify any one in concluding that it was to ever 
cease. It was to be a perpetual rite, and was never 
to be altered, I remark 

2. That the uniform practice of the apostles, with 
their continually recurring injunctions to believers 
to be baptized, would go to show that they deemed 
the obligation to observe this ordinance to be per- 
petual — that as long as there was a believing soul 
K?zbaptized, there was a fit subject for the adminis- 
tration of the rite. I remark 

3. Our Saviour never changed the ordinance. 
No passage containing the faintest intimation of a 

* Bailey's Manual. 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 87 

change can be found in the New Testament. | re- 
mark 

4. That the Saviour never delegated his preroga- 
tive to change a positive institution to any of his 
apostles or followers^ much less to alter, mutilate, or 
limit the ordinance of baptism. No one will pre- 
tend to find any such authority, except Romanists 
and their imitators. I remark 

5. That the close connection existing between the 
Lord^s Supper and baptism, would clearly indicate 
that they were to be observed as long as there was a 
soul to be saved — the one introducing him by sym- 
bol into the fold of Christ ; the other to symbolize 
that soul-nourishment necessary for growth in grace. 
The Redeemer positively enjoined that the Lord\s 
Supper should be observed, from time to time, by all 
believers, until His second advent. In the Commis- 
sion " our Lord contemplates the process of evangeli- 
zation as continuing through time, and expressly 
promises His presence to the world^s end. But He 
contemplates the administration of baptism as co-ex- 
tensive in both space and time with evangelization. 
He commands that it be made thus co-extensive.^^ "^ 
Why the rite of baptism should continue, without 
limitation, will clearly appear, when we consider 
the design of Baptism. A few^ remarks upon this 
point will be found pertinent to the discussion. I 
might content myself with the simple remark that 

*Prof. Pepper, of Newton Theological Institution. 



88 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

baptism was intended to represent the great change 
wrought in the soul through the power of the Holy 
Spirit^ and which is commonly designated as regene- 
ration^ or " being born again/^ or the '' new birth/' 
But as a correct apprehension of the design of bap- 
tism is necessary^ in order to see the great importance 
of administering it^ as it was appointed by Christ, it 
will be necessary to extend my observations. 

God has appointed a symbol to represent a deep 
work of grace in the soul. Truth ^^does not become 
whole and triumphant till she issues forth in symbol, 
iic ^-c- f(^^ ihxx^ alone is her latent omnipotence libe- 
rated.'^'''' The believer in Jesus having come to a 
saving knowledge of the truth, and been regenerated 
by the Eternal Spirit, will naturally desire " to de- 
clare these mighty truths.^' What then are the lead- 
ing truths to be symbolically represented ? The 
answer to this is well and sententiously stated by 
Dr. Boyce, of Greenville Theological Seminary, to 
be, 1. ''The cleansing influences of the Holy Spirit.^' 
2. '' The union of the believer with Christ in death.'' 
The former is represented by '' the use of water in 
baptism f the latter by the ''act of immersion." In 
accordance with this double viev/, Dr. John A. 
Broadus urges that the words, " Arise, be baptized, 
and wash av/ay thy sins," &c., teach that baptism 
" is emblematic of purification ;" whilst the words, 
" Know ye not that all who were baptized unto Jesus 

•-'Rev. G. n. Boardman, D. D. 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 89 

Christ were baptized unto His death ? We were 
buried, therefore^ with Hini by the baptism unto 
His death ; that as Christ was raised from the dead 
by the glory of the Father^ so we also siiould walk 
in newness of life;'^ and the well lvno^Yn passages in 
Colos. ii, and First Peter iii. 21, teach that baptism 
is intended ^^ to symbolize burial and resurrection.'^ 
This eminent scholar says farther, in the same con- 
nection : '^ Baptism has direct and especial reference 
to the death of Christ, to his burial and resurrec- 
tion ; and signifies that the believer, through faith 
united to Christ, has spiritually died to sin, and risen 
to live a nevv^ life.'' He says that baptism ^' is pre- 
cisely fitted to symbolize both at the same time. 
The elewxnt employed, water, represents purification ; 
the action pei^form'^dj immersion, represents burial 
and resurrection. If we should immerse in some- 
thing else than Avater, it would lose the former part 
of the meaning, (purification ;) if we should use 
water in some other Vv^ay than immersion, it would 
lose the latter part,^^ (death to sin, and resurrection 
to newness of life.) 

A recent waiter* represents a variety of things as 
expressed by the immersion of the believer. 1. 
Confession of sinfidness. Two figures are employed 
by the Holy Spirit to set forth His conception of sin. 
a, That of death ; 5, that of tmdeanness. 2. The 
convert'^ s entrance upon a holy career. The Holy 

*Dr. G. W. Boardmnn. 



90 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

Spirit employs a number of figures to set forth its 
conception of the new state into ^Yhich the regenerate 
sinner enters, a, The term life. As death is the 
standing type of sin, so life is the standing type of 
righteousness ; 6. a life of rigliteoiisness or ^purity is 
to be also represented by symbol. What shall it be? 
We are to symbolize the believer's death to sin, his 
resurrection to life, his total defilement, his total 
purification. 3. The instrument and pov^er by ichich 
he has been quid'ened and lourged.. a, The death of 
the Son of God ; 6, the believer is an actual partici" 
jyant through faith ; c, his resurrection to a life of 
purity. 4. A resuscitating and cleansing p>ov:er 
divinely efficacious. The sinner owes his salvation 
to Christ Jesus, crucified and buried, but risen. It 
is upon His resurrection that Christ rested the 
validity of His claims as the Messiaii of God. The 
Scriptures represent the believer not only as having 
participated in Christ's death, but as having partici- 
pated in His resurrection. In virtue of the believer's 
mystical union with Christ, Christ's death was his 
death, and Christ's resurrection his resurrection. To 
symbolize one, is manifestly as important as to sym- 
bolize the other. In baptism, both are accomplished. 
5. The coming resurrection -of the body and the 
heavenly immortality. It is one of the grand, fun- 
damental, characterizing truths of the gospel, that 
Jesus Christ hath abolished death, and brought life 
and immortality to light, being Himself the resurrec- 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 91 

tion and the life. The believer needs a symbol to 
represent outwardly his inward assurance that death, 
through Christ, has lost its sting, being swallowed 
up in victory. Can this be done ? What shall the 
symbol be ? All the above points are to be compre- 
hended, and one symbol must be employed. What 
shall it be? ^' The believer and his Saviour at the 
extremes of their conditions are to be comprehended — 
the believer is his death and filth, and also in his 
quickening and spotlessness ; the Saviour at the 
nadir of His humiliation, and also at the zenith of 
His glorification.^^ ^^ The first problem ^^ for the 
believer ^^ is to symbolize his onm spiritual death; 
the second, his ovm spiritual resurrection ; the third, 
his otvn total defilement ; the fourth, his own total 
purification; the fifth, the atoning death by which 
he has been riiade alive and cleansed ; the sixth, the 
accrediting and joy-giving resurrectio n ; the seventh, 
the resurrection of his oion body, and so the heaven 
to coined All this is beautifully accomplished by 
the immersion of the believer in Christ. The death 
to sin and resurrection to life are symbolized " by 
being buried by baptism into death.^^ The total de- 
filement of the sinner and the total purification of 
the believer are symbolized by being ^^ baptized'^ and 
thereby ^Svashing away thy sins,^^ (Acts 22, 16.) 
So belief in a burial and risen Mediator, a participa- 
tion in his death and resurrection, a confident expec- 
tation of sharing his blissful immortality, are most 



92 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

strikingly symbolized by submitting to baptism-— 
descending into the liquid tomb and emerging. I 
have thus tried to present rapidly a mere outline of 
the argument pursued by Dr. Boardman in his very 
impressive and beautiful lecture on " Baptism a 
Symbol.'^ I have done even the abstract of his 
argument injustice, owing to the necessarily brief way 
in which I have been compelled to present it. 

If the vievrs presented above be correct, how can 
sprinJding ov pouring answer the ends for which the 
ordinance of baptism was appointed by the Great 
Head of the Church Militant? Immersion is abso- 
lutely and unmistakably essential, in order that the 
design of baptism should be met. It is not a mere 
accident, but is truly the very essence of the rite it- 
self. 

To conclude, then, these observations, I feel satis- 
fied that the true view of the design of baptism is 
that given briefly by Drs. Boyce and Broadus, and 
more elaborately set forth by Dr. Boardman — that it 
is to symbolize the burial and resurrection of Christ, 
and the death of the believer to sin, and his resur- 
rection in newness of life, to holiness and to God, in 
Jesus Christ ; and secondly, the purification of the 
sinner through '^the cleansing influences of the Holy 
Spirit.^' The view sometimes presented with great 
confidence that baptism is simply emblematical of 
the purification of the believer, stops far short of the 
whole truth ; it leaves out the great work of Christ 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 93 

Avrought through His sacrificial death and trium- 
phant resurrection, and the never to be forgotten fact 
that the believer " beccmes a new creature, not in 
his solitary, separate self, but in Christ Jesus, the 
crucified and risen/^''-' It is only in the immersion 
and emersion of the believer in Christ that these im- 
portant ends are met. Adopt any other practice — 
substitute any other use of water, and you fail to 
symbolize the greatest facts connected with the salva- 
tion and purification of the soul. 

* Prof. Pepper. 



•94 IVHAT IS BAPTISM 



NUMBER XI. 

Discussion of Baptizo— Dr. Campbell's Testimoriy— K. Watson i gainst 
Socinians— The result of Prof. Curtis' Examination— Dr. Mell and 
President Shannon on the use of words employed to Express the 
Application of "Water, kc. 

I purpose now to enter upon a discussion of baj)- 
tizo and its derivatives. As only this word and its 
derivatives are used in the Xew Testament with 
reference to the rite of baptism, it may be important 
to offer some considerations with reference to it^ 
which greatly impressed my own mind, and had no 
little influence in determining my final action. I 
have in previous numbers furnished the reader with 
a striking list of authorities w^ho admit that the 
word baptizo, in its native, primary sense, means to 
plunge, to dip, to immerse. Let the reader recur to 
these concessions before he reads the remarks about 
to follow. 

Baptizo is a Greek word having an English ter- 
mination. The English translators, by the order of 
James I, did not translate baptizo^ but merely trans- 
ferred it to our lanp:uao:e. This is to be 2:reatlv re- 
gretted, as it has been the /o??s 'mcdi of a vast range 
of discussion. The celebrated Dr. Campbell, Presi- 
dent of Marischal College, Aberdeen, Scotland, to 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 95 

whom I have had occasion to refer more than once^ 
says, with reference to this failure of the translators 
to correctly render bo.ptizo : '^ We have deserted the 
Greek names where the Latins have deserted them, 
and have adopted them where the Latins have 
adopted them. Hence we say cirGumcision, and not 
2^eritomy (Greek ]jeritoine^) and v/e not say immer- 
sion, (Latin wimersiQ) but baptism.'^ In this in- 
stance retaining the Greek, or only anglicizing it. 
I)r. Campbell continues : '^ Yet when the language 
furnishes us tvitJi materials for a version so exact and 
analogical^ such a version conveys the sense more 
conspiciiously than a foreign name. For this reason, 
I should think the word immersion a better English 
name than baptism, were we l\o^Y at liberty to make 
such a choice/' This is the judgment of a very pro- 
found scholar and thinker. But are we not ^^at 
liberty '' to make such '^ a choice ?*' It is to be 
hoped so ! If this translation had been correctly 
made, then we would have read in Mark xvi, where 
the great commission is recorded : '^ He that believeth 
and is hmnersed, shall be saved,^^ &c. Such was the 
command as given by our Saviour himself. Dr. 
Richard Fuller very pointedly remarks that *Ho 
charge Him with wrapping up His meaning in an 
obscure phraseology, is impious, it is to accuse Him 
of the enormous guilt of the Roman tyrant, who 
hung his laws so high that people could not read 
them, and then inflicted severe punishment for their 



96 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

infraction/^ He says that the translators have 
shown that the pretext that there was difficulty in 
the word baptizo is unfounded^ for " in the case of 
Naaman^ (II Kings) the Septuagint, (the Greek 
translation of the Old Testament^) uses baptizo^ and 
the (English) translation renders it dip. ' Then 
went he down and dipped (Ebaptisato) himself seven 
times in Jordan.' ^^ 

The Baptists are evidently right, then^ when they 
contend that there is in the ivord used by our 
Saviour^ when he authorizes his disciples to baj)tize, 
a meaning sufficiently plain^ definite, and exclusive 
to imply necessarily, that the rite of baptism is inva- 
riably to be performed by immersing the whole body 
in water. Stuart felt this when he admitted that 
'' baptizo in the New Testament, when applied to the 
rite of baptism, does, in all probability, involve the 
idea '^ of immersion. Hence, the very learned Dr. 
Campbell declares, that '' baptizo, both in Sacred 
authors and in classical, signifies to dip, to plunge, 
to immerse,^' and that " it is always construed suitably 
to this meaning.^^ 

So all the learned dust which industrious partisans 
have been able to throw around Classic and Helle- 
nistic (sacred) Greek, has really availed them but 
little, as honest investigation has scattered it as leaves 
are scattered by the autumnal storm. They seem to 
have forgotten or ignored the fact that " w^hen God 
has spoken to men, he has spoken in the language of 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 97 

men, for he has spoken by men, and for men J' I 
submit the following passage which occurs in Wat- 
son^s Institutes^ a work of great merit^ and an espe- 
cial favorite among my Methodist brethren. That 
profound thinker is opposing the doctrines of Soci- 
nus, who contended that the ^''apostles employed 
terms in reference to the death of Christ which did 
not convey the idea of expiation/^ He thus argues : 
^' The use to be made of this in the argument is^ that 
as the apostles found the very terms they used with 
reference to the nature and efficacy of the death of 
Christ, fixed in our expiatory signification among 
the Greeks, they could not, in honesty^ use them in a 
distant, figurative sense, much less in a contrary one, 
ivithoitt giving due notice of their having invested 
them with a new import/^ Again he says : " In 
like manner, the Jews had their expiatory sacrifices, 
and the terms and phrases used in them are, in like 
manner, employed by the apostles to characterize the 
death of their Lord, and they would have been as 
guilty of misleading their Jewish, as their Gentile 
readers, hod they employed them in a new sense, and 
without learning, lohich, unquestionably, they never 
gaveP Now", I ask the reader if Watson's argument 
is not just and forceful ? I ask him farther to apply 
it to the controverted subject of the mode. I con- 
tend that Christ '^ found the very term he used with 
reference '^ to the ordinance of baptism " fixed '^ in 
its '^ signification among the Greeks,^' and that he 



98 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

could not without being '^guilty of misleading " his 
disciples^ (and who is brazen and wicked enough to 
affirm or suggest so blasphemous a thing?) have em- 
ployed this word in ^'a distant^ figurative sense," or in 
a ^^new sense/^ '^ much less in a contrary one^^' '' with- 
out giving due notice of his having invested it with a 
new import/' This he ^^unquestionably never gave/' 
It was so with the apostles. The Evangelist Luke tells 
us that he intended to write concerning ^^all that 
Jesus began to do and to teach,'^ and that '^ having had 
perfect understanding of all things from the first/^ 
he meant so to write that the reader '' might know 
the certainty of things/' He consequently informs 
us concerning many thiugs that the apostles said and 
did. Now if Luke^ the writer, or those about whom 
he writes, employed haptizo in a '' new sense,'' or 
gave to it a ^^ figurative, distant sense," or a ^^ con- 
trary sense," and yet without any ^^due notice or 
warning," I ask if their conduct was not extremely 
reprehensible — nay, was it not, according to Richard 
Watson, dishonest f If they used haptizo to desig- 
nate to pour or to sjyrinJcle, (which was to give it a 
meaning it never had,) and still '' without due no- 
tice," (and they do not remotely kbit at such a 
thing,) then they are deceivers^ and so far from giving 
^^ certain knowledge" of what Christ did, and what 
he requires or commands, we are altogether in the 
dark, and have ^^ no perfect understand " of either 
Christ, his Gospel, or his Kingdom. But they did 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 99 

no such thing. They employed haptizo just as the 
Greeks understood it then^ and understand it now — • 
giving it the usual^ common^ native, primary signi- 
fication. They could not possibly as honest men do 
otherwise without giving information of the fact. 

The true question then dividing the Baptists from 
their opponents is one of interpretation, i. e., whether 
a command to immerse is really given in the com- 
mand to baptize. After the unanswerable arguments 
of Carson and others, (and all attempts at an answer 
thus far have signally failed,) this question ought to 
be put to rest forever. The concessions, too, so 
abundant and clear, of the long list of eminent schol- 
ars and divines (not one of whom was a Baptist,) I 
have given, ought to silence ever hereafter all cavil- 
ling upon the subject. 

Professor Curtis, in his admirable work upon the 
" Progress of Baptist Principles for the last Hun- 
dred Years/^ after examining Stuart, Campbell, 
Robinson, Bloomfield, and others, in their critical 
researches to determine the meaning of baptizo, re- 
cords this opinioD, and the candid reader who has 
accompanied him in his interesting labors must 
admit its fairness. Says he : " Thus every use of 
the word. Classic and Hellenistic, literal and figura- 
tive, contributes to show that the command to bap- 
tize is a command to immerse, and that the word is 
never used literally (or even figuratively) without 
reference to this, the radical idea of the word, so 



100 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

that our word to dip is its perfect equivalent.'^ The 
meaning of the command being, thus satisfactorily 
arrived at, it would really appear too plain for argu- 
ment what we are to do upon making a profession of 
faith. '' Arise, and be immersed^^^ is most clearly the 
divine injunction. 

The following passage from the excellent work of 
Prof. Mell is so germain to the subject matter, that I 
cannot withhold it from the reader. I invite the 
reader to pay special attention to the remarkable 
facts he gives. He says : ^' The Greek language is 
very copious, and has a particular word to express, 
every motion, application, and use of water. For to 
sprinkle, it has raino or rantizo ; for to pour, €heo 
or ekcheo ; for to wash the hands, etc., nipto ; for ta 
bathe, louo ; for to wash clothes, pluno ; for to 
purify, agnizo or hathairo ; and all these words are 
used in the original of the Septuagint and the New 
Testament. The translators of our present English 
version were Pedobaptists ; and they use in their 
translations the word POUR and its derivatives more 
than one hundred and fifty times ; the word sprinkle 
more than sixty times ; the word dip and its deriva- 
tives more than twenty times; the vv^ord plunge 
once ; and the word puPvIFY a score of times. The 
word baptizo and its derivatives, when connected 
with the ordinance, they were forbidden to translate. 
Now the point of our present argument is this : '.' In 
no case w^here the original means clearly pour, sprint 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 101 

hle^ or purify, (leaving out of view the references to 
the ordinance^) is hapto or baptizo used ; and in no 
case when it means to dip or imnierse^ is raino or 
rantizOy cJteo or eJcolieOy agnizo or kathairo used. 
Nowhere do our translators render hapto or baptizo, 
by sjjrinMe, pour, ot purify ; ajid raino or rantizo, 
cJieo or eJcoheo, and agnizo or kathairo, by dip, 
plunge^ or immerse/^ He refers to Leviticus iv : 6, 
7, where ba2^to is translated dip ; raino is translated 
sprinkle; and eZ:cAeo is translated pour. The facts 
contained in this extract must appear very significant 
to every thoughtful mind. Hinton says is his His- 
tory of Baptism : " Is it too much to ask^ that seeing 
baptizo is never found in the New Testament applied 
to sprinkling or pouring, but always to immersion, 
in future, those who pour or sprinkle, will cease to 
falsify the word baptizo, and speak of rliantizing, or 
any other word that approximates in some slight 
degree to the process, rather than be so absurd as to 
use a w^ord the most remote that possibly could be 
found in the Greek language.^' 

President Shannon, of the College of Louisiana, 
in the third volume of his work, " The Christian 
Preacher,^^ gives us the benefit of his own researches 
in regard to this word under discussion. He says : 
'' While I filled the Professorship of Ancient Lan- 
guages in the University of Georgia, I had occasion 
to compile a table of passages where the words dip, 
pour^ sprinkle, and tcash, in their various modifica- 



im WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

tions, occur in the English BiblCj with the corres- 
ponding term used iji the Greek of the New Testa- 
ment and the Septuagint. Dip, I found in twenty- 
one passages. In all of these except one, bcqjto or 
haptizo is found in the Greek. The one exception is 
in Gen. xxxvii: 31, when Joseph's brethren took his 
coat and dipped — emolunan, smeared or daubed — it 
in the blood of the kid. Mark the great accuracy 
of the Greek here — the idea is that of smearing or 
daubing, and the Septaugint so expresses it. 

^^Sprixkle, in some of its forms, I found in 
twenty-seven passages. In not a single instance is 
lai^to or haptizo used in the Greek. 

'^ Pour I found in no less than one hundred and 
nineteen instances, but in not even one of tliem did 
I meet with bapto or baptizo in the Greek. 

I found wash in thirty-two cases, vrhere reference 
was had, not to the whole person, but to a part, as 
the eyes, the face, the hands, the feet. In none of 
these was bapto or baptizo found, but xipto inva- 
riably.^' 

Reader, is not this very strange — nay, is it not 
wonderful if haptizo means indifferently, plunge, 
pour, or sprinkle, and some Pedobaptists are right ? 
Why should haptizo be exGlusively and invariahly 
used to express the rite of baptism, unless really 
baptism was a specific act, which this word precisely 
expressed, and which no other word in the Greek 
language would ? 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 103 

The following remarks from the elegant pen of 
Eev. Dr. J. L. Reynolds^ of Columbia^ S. C, are 
so unusually suggestive c^nd valuable^ that I deem it 
right to copy them in this note. They appeared in 
a letter written to the Meligious Herald, in the year 
1866. Dr. R. says : 

'^ A thorougli oriental scholar is rare, in this country. It has 
recently been my good fortune to see one such, and I embraced 
the opportunity to ask a good many questions. The person to 
whom I allude is an Israelite, a man of unusual erudition, 
familiar with Hebrew, biblical and rabbinical, Chaldee, Arabic, 
which he speaks freely, and many others of the Semitic lan- 
guages. His reading of Hebrew was perfect music. I never 
knew before how much melody lay hidden to our uncircumcised 
ears in that noble tongue. 

'' Having inquired whether the Hebrew word tabal ever 
means any thing but immerse or dip, even in conversational 
use, he promptly replied in the negative, and asking me for a 
Hebrew Bible he opened at the 14th chapter of Leviticus, to 
show its biblical use. This chapter, he remarked, contains 
words descriptive of the various applications of water, dipping, 
sprinkling^ p>oiiring, icasliing, and they are all diiferent. No> 
one of the words is ever used for any of the others. 

"Our Lord delivered the commission recorded by Matthewv 
in Chaldee, the language spoken by his disciples. That lan- 
guage, slightly differing from Hebrew, contains these words, 
and our Lord must have used one of them. He did not em-^ 
ploy an ambiguous or uncertain term. He commanded his dis- 
ciples either to immerse, sprinkle or pour. He could not have 
used a word susceptible of all three of these raeanings ; for the 
language did not contain it. The simple question then is, does^ 
the Greek word in Matthew correspond to the Chaldee word 
signifying to immerse or to sprinkle or to pour? Can any 



104 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

scholar hesitate to believe that haptizo is the Greek rendering of 
tahaly to immerse? L^on the hypothesis that baptizo means to 
immerse^ to sprinJde a:?vD to pour — all three — there is no woi^d 
in Hebrew or Chaldee^ in whAcJi our Lord could have given his 
commission to his disciples. The supposition, therefore, that 
the ward means indifferently, any one of these things, is pre- 
posterous. The only ground open to the scholar, is that occu- 
pied by Moses Stuart ; that, although the word means immerse 
and nothing but immerse, our Lord did not intend by it to 
designate the particular mode of application but only the nse of 
water, in the sacred ordinance. And this remands us to the 
inquiry, whether our Lord meant what his words most obvi- 
ously imply. However, it was not my purpose to discuss the 
subject of baptism, but merely to record a philological fact 
upon the testimony of a learned orientalist.'' 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 105 



NUMBER XII. 

Discussion of Eaptizo continued— Dr. Fuller quoted— Pendleton on 
"pouring" a Man— C. Taylor on the pouring out of the Spirit— Dr. 
Moll on Materializing the Spirit— What Neander says. 

I continue my observations and quotations upon 
baptizo. Dr. Mell says "If hapto or haptizo does not 
mean to immerse^ then there is no word in the Greek 
language that can express that act. If there is, 
what is it ? Some have claimed that hataduo is a 
more specific term than haptizo to express to immerse 
or plunge. If this be so, it is very singular that 
the Holy Spirit did not employ it. It is equally 
singular that classic writers failed to employ it when 
endeavoring to convey the idea of dipping.'^ Dr. 
Mell is a fine Greek scholar. Hear what he says : 
" I maintain that hataduo has not the meaning of 
dip at all.^^ I refer the reader to his work for the 
proof he offers. 

The discussion, then, of the Greek word baptizo, 
which is invariably employed when the ordinance of 
baptism is referred to, ought of itself to forever de- 
cide this whole controversy. And so it would but 
for the heated prejudices of the human mind. The 
pure and spiritual Fenelon, and the saintly Thomas 
a Kempis, were so blinded by education and custom^ 



106 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

that they boldly defended the terrible corruptions of 
the Romish Hierarchy. In these latter times truly 
religious and intelligent men are found earnestly 
contending for the validity of pouring and sprink- ' 
ling^ in spite of the conclusive evidence which mod- 
ern research and learning have afforded in establish- 
ing that haptizo means to immerse and nothing else. 
There could not possibly be any difficulty in ascer- 
taining what this word really means if all men were 
candid and teachable. It is passing strange that 
writers who claim to be learned and fair-minded, 
should endeavor to attach three meanings to this 
word^ when the most gifted Greek scholars^ after lay- 
ing all Greek literature under contribution, have 
been unable to discover one solitary example where 
it ever means sprinJding or pouring, I know that 
some of them deny this, but if the reader wall pur- 
sue the investigation with patience and candor, he 
will find that all the passages they collate which 
they claim to furnish evidence in their favor, (like 
those cited by Prof. Stuart from Dionysius, of Hali- 
oarnassus, and from Plutarch,) when critically and 
fairly examined, testify unmistakably to the truth of 
the assertion that haptizo has no other meaning than 
immerse. If so, then it cannot possibly mean pour 
or sprinkle. ^^ These are entirely different actions. 
They would require^ too, a different phraseology. I 
immerse a man, but I do not pour a man, I pour the 
water. ^^ So with sprinkling ; water is sprinkled, 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 107 

not the man. In showing the absurdity of claiming 
that haptizo has three meanings — to pour, to sprinkle, 
and to immerse — Dr. Richard Fuller observes : 
" Suppose the word saio, meant a saic, and an axe, 
and a nail ; how could a carpenter kno\v what I 
mean when I ask for a saw ? To say that a word 
means three distinct tilings, is to sav it means neither 
of them. If there were such a word, we should have 
to employ some other vvord to show which of the 
three things Vv'C intend. And this is true of the 
most general words. Ride, for example, means one 
thing; it means ride* You may ride in different 
ways, but it is still riding. Ride cannot mean ride, 
and eat, and walhJ^ He says that haptizo " no more 
means to pour or sprinkle, than it means to fly. Is 
it presumption to assert that the English word im- 
merse means immerse and nothing else? But in 
Greek haptizo means immerse.^^ If haptizo means 
immerse, as all denominations admit, although they 
claim more, it is not possible it seems to me for it to 
mean pour and sprinkle too. ^'Immerse, sprinkle, 
and pour, are three distinct ideas, expressed by dif- 
ferent words in all languages.^^ No man in his right 
mind would think of ^^mmersing an object ^^ — say, 
an apple, and then contend that he had ^^ sprinkled 
it.'^ This remark is as applicable, " says President 
Shannon,^^ to the Greek as to the English. Indeed, 
it is well known that the Greek excels in the precis- 
ion and fidelity/ with which it expresses different 



108 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

ideas, and even different shades of the same idea, by 
the same words.^^ 

A few words more in this connection. Has it 
ever occurred to the reader that it is very remark- 
able^ if baptizo means sprinkle or pour, that ^^ water 
is never said to be baptized upon the subject of the 
ordinance, and that the loater is neve?^ said to be ap- 
pliedJ^ Truly, then, does the Rev. J. M. Pendleton 
express himself, when he says : ^^ If baptizo means 
sprinkle or pour, the w^ater is baptized, not the per- 
son. We cannot speak of sprinkling a man without 
an ellipsis or figure of speech/^ '^ A man cannot be 
poured^ because pouring implies a continuous stream 
of the substance poured. I say again, if baptize, in 
the New Testament, means sprinkle or pour, the 
loater IS baptized. But nowhere is water found in 
the objective case, after the verb baptize, in the active 
voice, and nowhere is it in the nominative case to 
the verb in the passive voice. We never read^ I 
baptize water upon you, but I baptize you. It is 
never said, water was baptized upon them ; but it is 
said : they were baptized, both men and women.'^ 
Therefore^ baptize cannot possibly mean pour or 
sprinkle. Only substitute immerse for pour, and all 
is natural, simple, and beautiful. Taylor in his 
much vaunted book — alike remarkable for its bold- 
ness and its intense sophistry— has the following, on 
page 120, on the "pouring down of the Holy 
Ghost.^^ He says : " Try both these irreconcilable 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 109 

propositions by the substitution of their synonyms. 
^ John plunges you in w^ter ; but ye shall be plunged 
in the Holy Ghost/ ^^ He is pleased to apply the 
following blasphemous language in derision of the 
words employed by the Holy Spirit: "Shocking 
abuse of language and principle!" That is, it is a 
" shocking abuse of language and principle ^^ for the 
Holy Spirit to declare that our Saviour uttered these 
memorable words : " John immersed you in water ; 
but ye shall be immei^sed in the Holy Ghost. '^ Pro- 
fessor EOBINSOX (high Pedobaptist authority) trans- 
lates this passage : " He shall baptize you in the 
Holy Ghost/^ &c. The meaning of all such expres- 
sions, as Dr. Fuller remarks, is apparent : " So 
abundant shall be the influences of the Holy Spirit 
that ye shall be bathed in them. It is a prediction 
that Jesus would immerse his people in the illumina- 
ting and purifying influences of the Holy Ghost." 
It will not be denied that the Greek fathers best 
understood their own language — the language of the 
New Testament. Hear Theophylact on these words : 
" That is, he shall inundate you abundantly with the 
gifts of the Spirit.'^ Hear also Cyril, of Jerusalem: 
" For as he ih^t goes down into the water and is bap- 
tized is surrounded on all sides by the water, so the 
apostles were totally baptized (immersed) by the 
Spirit.'^ But Taylor thinks that it is decent, and 
according to the analogy of &ith, of grammar, and 
of language, to translate these words : " The Holy 



no "WHAT IS EAPTIS3I? 

Ghost shall be poiired upon you; shed upon you ; 
fall upon you: as John pours water, sheds water, lets 
fall water upon you/^ &c. 

The Holy Spirit wrote : '* John immei^ed you in 
water, but ye shall be immersed in the Holy Ghost." 
Mr. Tavlor would have vou change the construction 
by saying, ^'The Holy Ghost shall be poured/' &c. 
But that will do violence both to grammar and lan- 
guage and the ^^ analogy '^ will not be preserved. If 
he insist upon pouriJig as the translation, then it will 
read : ^' John pours you in water, but you shall he 
p)oured in the Holy Ghost.'^ A xqvj '^ shocking 
abuse of language and principle !'^ To this idea of 
the pouring out of the Spirit there are many and 
great objections, as Dr. Mell suggests. It material- 
izes the Holy Ghost. It undertakes to tell the mode 
of the Spirit's operations, which expressly contra- 
dicts John iii : 8. It absurdly places the Holy 
Spirit alove us and confines Him there. God is om- 
nipresent. If pouring is to be taken as a fit symbol 
to represent the manner of the Spirit^s operations, 
so must a rushing wind, a breath, an emission of 
sound, shining forth of light, an annointing, a well 
of water springing up, a stream, drinking. To all 
these, the operations of the Spirit are compared. 
The truth is, the pouring out of the Spirit is a figu- 
rative expression, as are the others. 

Before leaving this part of the subject, I will sub- 
mit the remarks of one of the profoundest Pedobap- 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? Ill 

tist scholars of this or any age. The candor of the 
exposition and the fidelity of the passage to the 
teachings of inspiration^ will appear in striking con- 
trast to the performance of that literary acrobat, C. 
Taylor, as he fairly vaults into the linguistic arena. 
Neander, in his ^^Life of Christ/^ thus felici- 
tously expresses himself : ^^He (Christ) it was that 
should baptize them with the Holy Ghost and with 
fire ; that is to say, that as his (John's) followers 
were entirely immersed in the water, so the Messiah 
would immerse the souls of believers in the Holy 
Grhost imparted by himself; so that it should 
thoroughly penetrate their being, and form within a 
new principle of life. And this spirit-baptism was 
to be accompanied by a baptism of fire. Those who 
refused to be pen^strated by the Spirit of the Divine 

life, should be destroyed by the fire of the Divine 
judgments. '^"''^' 

* Baptism of the Holy Ghost.— In the fourth volume of Lange's 
Commentary, just issued, the author of the exegetical notes — Dr. Lechler,' 
Professor of Theology, and Superintendent at Leipsic— says, on Acts!: 
5, " The gift of the Spirit is here termed baptism, and is thus character- 
ized as one of most abundant fullness, and as a submersion in a purifying 
and life-giving element. The term and the image are both derived from 
the water- baptism of John." ' "• 



112 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 



NUMBER XIII. 

What for tj^- eight standard Greek Lexicons say— Thirty-three Learned 
Pedobaptist Authors testifying that the proper meaning of Baptize is 
to Immerse —Their Language Quoted. 

I have already remarked that haptizo has never 
been translated. It was merely adopted into our 
language. The termmation was simply changed, 
and haptizo became baptize. If the meaning of this 
word can be found^ then the controversy is forever 
settled. How can this meaning be ascertained? 
About any other word, you would say, the direct way 
will be to consult the various Grreek lexicons. Why 
not, then, resort to them in this case ? Let us then 
turn to them that we may ascertain 

WHAT GEEEK LEXICONS SAY BAPTIZO MEAKS. 

I will not consume the space allowed me with 
quoting what really they all say. I will give the 
sum of their evidence. The celebrated Presbyterian, 
Dr. N. L. RiCE^ gives us the result of his researches 
among Greek dictionaries, in his work on baptism, 
and in his debate with Alexander Campbell. He 
quotes from twelve.- Every one says that haptizo 
means dip or immersej v/hilst NOT ONE says that it 
means pour or sprinkle. Nor do any of the twelve 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 118 

assign to haptizo any meaning that does not admit of 
immersion. The thoughtful reader will say very 
good thus far for the Baptists. But let us pursue 
this investigation farther. The following are the 
authors quoted by Br. Rice : Scapula, Hedericus, 
Stephanus, Schleusner, Parkhurst, Robinson, Schri- 
vellius. Groves, Bretschneider, Suidas, Wahl, and 
Greenfield. I propose now to extend this list. The 
following legicographers unite in giving to haptizo the 
meaning of to dip^ to plunge^ to immerse, vfhilst none 
of them say it means to p>our or sprinkle, viz : 

Pasor, Donnegan, Dr. John Jones, Prof. Rost, 
Bass, Pickering, Stokius, Robertson, Suicerus, Leigh, 
Richardson, Passow, Castell, Constantio, Schoett- 
genius, Trommius, Minterest, Bagster, Michaelis, 
Schaaf, Guido, Fabricius, Schindler, Buxtorf, Pas- 
chal, Auscher, Mekitar Vartabed, Alstedius, Wilson, 
William Young, Bailey, Buttery/orth, Ash, Leusden, 
and Walderus. These added to those quoted by Dr. 
Rice, make no less than fokty-six standard lexi- 
cons, made in different ages, in different countries, 
by the learned of different denominations, and still 
agreeing in giving to haptizo — the word always used 
in the New Testament to express the idea of bap- 
tism — the meaning of to immerse or to pflunge, and 
none of them indicating remotely that it ever means 
to pour or sprinkle. And yet people knowing this, 
will still sprinkle adults and vow solemnly that they 
have truly baptized them. With the learned of the 



114 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

earth on the side of the Baptists they can afford to "bo 
taunted with ignorance. 

There are still two other lexicons to be consulted^ 
which will complete the evidence on this head. 

1. LiDDELL AND ScoTT. This is the standard 
Greek lexicon of the ao-e. It emanated from Oxford^ 
in England, is constructed upon the plan of the great 
German lexicographer, Passow, and ranks above all 
dthers. Concerning it, it has been said, that there is 
scarcely an important sentence in the whole range of 
Greek literature that it has not weighed. In the 
first edition, the learned authors (Episcopalians) gave 
among other meanings of haptizo, to steeps wet^ pour 
tipoiiy drench. But in the second edition, they have 
expunged these definition. Vfhy this ? It must be 
very plain to every one that these meanings would 
never have been withdrawn, if within the range of all 
Greek literature, one solitary passage could have been 
found which would justify their retention. As honest 
and learned men, these authors have obliterated these 
meanings, and noiv to this greatly controverted word 
they give only the following : 1. To dip repeatedly; 
of ships, to sink them ; passive voice, to bathe. 2. 
To draw water. 3. To baptize — New Testament.. 

By lathing we are to suppose they mean immersed 
in water, as the withdrawing of the other senses 
would prevent the supposition that they meant bath- 
ing ivith water. It is necessary to mention in this 
connection one fact attending the publication of this 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? llS 

great work in the United States. Professor Drisler 
Was the editor — a Pedohaptist. Instead of giving as 
the meanings of haptizo^ those of the second and 
revised edition, he chose to give the definitions of the 
first Oxford edition. This, however, was soon ex- 
posed, and in the second American edition, the Pro- 
fessor did not add anything to the meaning of that 
w^ord, as given in the second Oxford edition. This in 
itself is very significant. 

2, De. Charles Anthon. This learned lexicog- 
rapher is the Liddell and Scott of America. He is an 
Episcopalian, and Professor of Greek in Columbia Col- 
lege, New York. In a letter to Dr. Palmley, he says: 

'' The primary meaning of haptizo is to dip or im- 
merse^ and its secondary meanings (if it ever had any) 
all refer^ in some way or other, to the same leading 
idea,'' — i. e., immersion. ^^ SPRiNKLiNa, &c., ake 

ENTIPvELY OUT OF THE QUESTION." 

Professor Stuart's rule of interpretation is, " that 
the primary signification must be taken always unless 
the context obviously demands a secondary significa- 
tion.'' The context, at least, can never demand that 
haptizo shall take the meaning of to pour or sprinlde — 
a meaning which it never had. Are the Baptists, 
then, not right, when they contend that the command 
which our Saviour gave to his disciples to baptize 
(haptizo) was nothing else than a plain, easily under- 
stood, imperative order, to immerse ? 

I now invite the reader to the following : 



116 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

PEDOBAPTIST "WITNESSES WHO TESTIFY THAT 
BAPTIZO MEAN'S TO IMMERSE. 

1. Beza. '' Christ commanded us to be baptized, 
by Tvhicli word it is certain immersion is signified." 

2. Neander, '^ In resiDcct to the form of baptism, 
it was in conformity with the original import of the 
symhol^ performed hy immersion'' 

3. Altingius. ''For baptism is ra??26m6>?i ^ ^ 
the term baptism is never used concerning aspersion." 

4. HOSPINIANUS. '' Christ commanded us to be 
baptized, by Avliich word it is certain immersion is 
signified.^' 

5. GuRTLERUS. ''Baptism is immersion^ dii^ping. 
The thing commanded by our Lord is baptism, immer- 
sion in water." 

6. BuDDEUS. " The Y\'ords haptizein and hap)tis- 
mos are not to be interpreted of aspersion, but always 
of immersion.'' 

7. Callexbuegh. " In baptism the whole body 
is ordered to be immersed," 

8. Dr. Storr. " The disciples of our Lord could 
understand his command in no other manner than as 
enj oining immersio nJ^ 

9. Martix LriHER. "The term baptism is a 
Greek word; it may be rendered into Latin by 
merslOy when we immerse anything in water.^^ 

10. IvNAPP. " Baptisma^ from haptizein^ w^hich 
properly signifies to dip in, to wash by immersion/^ 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 117 

11. Bloomfield. ^^Tlie sense o{ was baptized 
in, is was dipped, or j^hcnged intoJ^ 

12. Zanchius. "The proper signification of bap- 
tize is to immerse^ plunge under^ overwhelm in 
water.^' 

13. Salmasius. " Baptism is immersion, and was 
administered in former times according to the force 
and meaning of the word.'^ 

14. AuGUSTi. " The v/ord baptism^ according to 
etymology and usage^ signifies to immerseJ^ 

15. Brenner. " The word corresponds in signi- 
fication with the German taufen, to sink in the deepJ^ 

16. Paullus. "The word baptize signifies in 
Greek sometimes to immerse, sometimes to submerged 

17. ScHOLZ. "Baptism consists in the immersion 
of the whole body in water.^^ 

18. Ikenius. "The Greek word bajJtismos de- 
notes the immersion of a person or thing into some- 
thing.^^ 

19. Casaubon. " To baptize is to immerse.^^ 

20. EiDGELEY. " The original and natural sig- 
nification of the word baptize imports to dipT 

21. LiNEBOECH. "Baptism consists in washing 
or rather immersing the whole body in water^ as was 
customary in primitive times. ^^ 

22. Sir John Floyer. " Immersion is no cir- 
cumstance but the very act of baptism.^^ 

23. Poole's Continuators. "To be baptized 
is to be dipped in water, ^' 



118 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 



24. Valesius. '^ Baptism properly signifies im- 



mersion r 



25. CoLEAiAX. ^- The primary signification of 
haptlzo is to dip^ to plunge^ to immerse. The obvi- 
ous import of the noun is irnmersion,^^ 

26. Edixbuegh Reyie^v says that it is ^^a fixed 
point universally admitted^' that haptizo means ^o 
dipr 

27. Wetstexius, ^* To baptize is to plunge, to 
dip/' 

28. Barkow. '' The action is baptizing or im- 
mersion in water.'^ 

29. BuEMAXNUS. ^' Baptismos and baptisma, if 
vou consider the etvmolosrv, properlv sicrnifv inirner- 
sion:' 

30. RiCHAPvD Beatley. ^^^opi^ism OS, baptisms, 
dippAags.'^' 

31. Beckmanes. ^'Baptism, according to the 
force of its etvmoloo:v, is iramersion and washino: or 
dipping."^ 

32. BucANUS. '^Baptism, that is immersion^' 
He says our Lord was immersed. 

33. Vox Geelach. '' The Greek word (baptizo) 
properly signifies dij?,'' 

In addition to this long list of authorities^ I refer 
the reader for similar testimony to the extracts given 
in previous numbers from Venema^ Prof Fritsche, 
Porson, Rogers. Jeremy Taylor^ Dr, G. Campbell, 
London Q. Review, Yitringa, Prof Stuart, John 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? X19 

Calvin, Witsius, Dr. Chalmers, Melanchtlion, and, 
indeed, many others. These witnesses show most 
conclusively that the Baptists are right in the views 
which they hold with regard to the ordinance of 
baptism. 

Let the reader remember that this brilliant array 
of witnesses were all the opponents of Baptists. 
They nevertheless tell you that the meaning of bap- 
tizo is to immerse^ and that too in the very teeth of 
their own practice. In the next, I will give farther 
evidence upon this subject. 



120 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 



XUMBER XIY. 

Testimony of the Greek Church— Of the Various Translations of the 
Bible— Baptizo cannot mean to Sprinkle— Does not mean to Purify— 
Profane 'Writers and the Fathers quoted, &q., See. 

I purpose continuing my remarks upon baptizo in 
this number. I proceed to oifer the evidence to be 
derived 

FEOM THE GEEEK CHURCH. 

The renowned Db. Stanley says^ in his ^' His- 
tory of the Eastern Church/^ with reference to the 
Greek Church : ^^ It is her privilege to claim a direct 
continuity of speech with the earliest times^ to boast 
of reading the whole code of Scripture^ old as well 
as new^ in the language in xchicli it was read and 
spoken by the apostles. '•'' '••' *'•'' The Greek 
Church is thus the 07ily living representative of the 
Hellenic race, and speaks in the only living voice 
which has come doicn to us from the apostolic ageJ^ 
ISToWj what does the Eastern Church teach in regard 
to immersion ? Prof. Stuart has told us as quoted 
in a former number. Dr. Stanley confirms Prof. S., 
and says it '^ still rigidly adheres^' to immersion. 
He says that this Church;, which ^^ is the mother o{ 



WHAT IS BAPTI8M? 121 

the Roman/' and which ^^ reads and speaks the lan- 
guage of the apostles/' and which ^^has access to the 
original oracles of divine truth, which Pope and Car- 
dinal reach by a barbarous and imperfect transla- 
tion/^ ^^ still rigidly adheres ^^ to ^^ complete immer- 
sion ^^ as '' the original form of baptism, the very 
meaning of the vv^ord.'^ Surely^ then^ those who 
read and speak the language of Peter^ and John^ 
and Paul^ knew what baptizo means ! But here is 
other evidence. 

Stoxjrdza^ a native Greek^says: " The verb bap- 
tizo has only one acceptation. It literally and per- 
petually signifies to plunge. Baptism and immersion 
are identical." 

Jeremiah^ a Greek patriarchy says : '' The an- 
cients were not accustomed to sprinkle the candi- 
dates^ but to immerse them.^^ 

Christopulos says : '' We follow the example of 
the apostleSj who imraersed the candidate under 
water. '^ 

Let us now see what evidence is offered by 

THE YAPvIOITS TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 

It would seem quite clear that if those who have 
translated the Bible into various languages^ under- 
stood baptizo to mean immerse^ or anything else, 
they would so translate it. On the other hand, if 
they understood it to mean to pour or sprinkle, they 
would so render it. Now, what is the evidence ? 



122 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

1. During the first three hundred years aftei^ 
Christy the Bible was translated into the Peshito, 
Syriac, Coptic, Sahidic, and Basmuric tongues. 

2. During the following five hundred years, it 
was translated into the Philoxenian, Arabic, Ethi- 
opic, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, Anglo-Saxon, 
and Latin, (Vulgate.) Of this number, the " ten 
versions which translate the word, render it by a 
word which signifies immerseJ^ The others simply 
transfer the word bajjiize. Here we find no pouring 
or sprinkling in the -translations of God's word for 
the first eight hundred years. Now^ is not this very 
remarkable if the j)rimitive churches really practiced 
pouring or sprinkling ? 

I have before me a table containing no less than 
fifty versions. In ten the word baptize is used, not 
translated. In tiuenty-nine a word is used which 
invariably signifies to dip or immerse. Four render 
baptism by wash, cleanse, or bathe. Seven render it 
by a word which means to cross; but these seven are 
Russian or Sclavonic, and they always practice im- 
mersion as we have seen. But, strange as it may 
appear to sprinklers, not one of these fifty versions 
ever translate baptizo into words meaning to sprinkle 
or pour. 

That the reader may see at a glance that baptizo 
cannot possibly mean to 2^our or sprinlde, I will 
quote a few pas>sages from the Bible. ^^ Jacob poured 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 123 

oil on the stone.'^ Gen. xxviii: 18. Substitute 
baptize for pour and see how it will read. 

^^Rain was not poured on the earth. '^ Ex. ix : 
83. 

^^They shall pour out the dust." Lev. xiv: 41. 

'' Pour out your heart for him." Ps. Ixii : 8. 

" I v^iW pour out my Spirit upon all flesh." Joel 
ii: 28. 

''Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen." Ps. 
Ixxix : 6. 

I refer the reader for similar evidence to Matt. 
xxvi : 7. John ii : 15. Or substituting baptize for 
sprinMe, read Ex. xxxvi: 35; Job ii: 12^ and Heb. 
ix : 13. It is equally absurd when vv^e come to the 
New Testament. Try it at Matt, iii : 1, 6, 11, 16. 
Luke xii : 50. Rom. vi : 4. John iii : 23. Bnt 
enough. 

But does not haptizo mean to purify? Let us see. 
Turn to the classics. 

HiPPOCKATES. " Shall I not laugh at the man 
vfho purifies (baptizes) his ship by overloading it." 

Aeistotle. '' Places beyond the pillars of Her- 
cules which, when it is ebb tide, are not purified/' 
(baptized.) 

Achilles Tatius. '' Purified (baptized) with a 
multitude of evils." 

JoSEPHUS. ^' Purified (baptized) by drunkenness 
into stupor and sleep." Purified {h^:^iim^) in igno- 
ranee, ^ 



124 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

Did these writers use baptize and purify inter- 
changeably? Let the intelligent answer. So with 
the fathers. Think you that they understood bap- 
tize, in the following, to mean inirifyy or did they 
mean to plunge or to dip f 

Basil. '' As wool is purified (baptized) in a dye.^' 

JusTix Martyr. ''Furified (baptized) with most 
grievous sins." 

Clement oe Alexandria. '^ Purified (bap- 
tized) with most grievous sins." 

Origen. '^Purified (baptized) by wickedness.^' 
Others might be given, but this is sufficient to show 
the absurdity of such a pretention. 

In concluding the evidence upon the meaning of 
baptizOy I will now give a few quotations from the 
fathers to show how they understood haptizo ; in 
what sense they used it. 

evidence deawn eeom the fathers or 
early christian writers. 

1 . Barnabas. " Blessed are they who put their 
trust in the cross and deseend into the watery' &c, 
" We go do ion into the loater,'' d'o. 

2. Hermes. '' They (the apostles) tcent there- 
fore into the ivater v/ith them," &c. 

3. Justin Martyr. " Whelmed (baptized) with 
most grievous sins." 

4. Tertullian. ^^ Last of all, commanding that 
they should immerse (tingerent) into the Father,'^ 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 125 

&c. ^' Then we are three times immersed {mergita- 

5. Clement. '^ Phingecl (baptized) by drunken- 
ness into sleep." 

6. HiPPOLYTUS. '' Jesus came to John^ and was 
immersed (baptized) in the Jordan." He was a 
Christian bishop, A. D. 200. . 

7. Origen. '^ Whehned (baptized) by wicked- 
ness." 

8. Athanasiuh. '^In these benefits thou wast 
immersed/^ (baptized.) ^^ Thou hast the immersion 
(baptism) as a surety/' &c. 

9. Jerome. '^ When they are taught (this) dip 
them in water." ^^ Thrice we are immersed [termer- 
gimur,'") 

I have similar extracts from Gregory , Bishop of 
Neo Cseserea, from Gregory Nazianus, Cornelius, 
Cyril, Basil, &c. Prof. Stuart says : '' The passages 
which refer to immersion are so numerous in the 
Fathers, that it would take a little volume merely to 
write them." He says farther that the ^^ churches of 
Christ from a very early period" understood and 
construed haptizo ^^as meaning immersion." 

I will close this testimony with a passage or two 
from Josephus and Philo, Jwo distinguished Jewish 
writers, that the reader may have evidence before 
him that haptizo with them had the same meaning as 
among Christian authors. 



m What is baptism? 

JosEPHtrs was born A. D. 37. Conant gives a 
good many examples from him. I submit a few. 

^^ Continually pressing down and immersing (bap- 
tizing) him while swimming, as if in sport, they did 
not desist until they had entirely suifocated hinii" 

"And then, according to command, being im- 
mersed [baptized) by the Gauls in a swimming bath^ 
he dies.^' 

"The pilot voluntarily submerged {baptized) the 
vessel/' 

" Dipping [baptizing) a hyssop branch, they sprink- 
led." 

" This, as a final blast, overwhelmed {baptized) the 
tempest-tossed youth.^' 

We see from these examples how this learned Jew- 
ish writer used baptizo. Never once does he employ 
it in the sense of to pour or sprinkle, but ahoays in 
the sense of to immerse. He was contemporary with 
the apostles, and " could not fail to know the mean- 
ing of the word as used by the Jews at the very time 
the New Testament was written." 

Philo, born about A. D. 50. He was also con- 
temporary with many of the apostles. He writes : 
" Those who are glutted with drink and food are 
least intelligent, as though the reason were whelmed 
{baptized) by the things overlying it." 

I have thus detained the reader with a long dis- 
cussion of baptizo. I felt that the importance of 
that word in the controversy between Baptists and 



WHAT I^ BAPWSMf 12? 

their opponents^ required such M examination. 1 
refer those who may desire to study this subject to 
the unanswerable work of Dr* Alexander Carson, 
which is pa7^ excellence the very ablest work that has 
appeared on either side. His work, Prof. Stuart's, 
and Prof. Conant's, will give them, in all proba- 
bility, all the Greek passages in which haptizo occurs 
which industrious learning has been able to discover. 
I feel certain that a candid examination of these pas- 
sages will result in convincing them that the Baptists 
are right. 

I close this part of the discussion with the decla- 
ration of the present Episcopal Bishop of Kentucky. 
Bishop Smith ^^ publicly affirms that, after the most 
careful investigation and mature reflection, he con- 
siders immersion to be the only apostolic mode of 
baptism, and recommends the church of which he is 
an eminent and highly esteemed minister, to delegate 
one of its number to procure immersion at the hands 
of a Greek priest, that, having received it in un- 
doubted succession from the apostles, he may be 
authorized to administer baptism in its ancient 
PIJEITY to ALL his hrethrcn on this side of the At- 
lantic." 



128 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 



NUMBER XY. 

The Greek Prepositions— Stuart's and Blaekstone's Rule— Quotations 
given from Prof. Mell, Ewing, Hervey, &c. 

In former years great importance was attached to 
tlie nse of the Greek prepositions^ and many learned 
disquisitions have been written upon them by Pedo- 
baptists^ and some disquisitions have been written^ 
too^ that could scarcely be called learned, unless non- 
sense and sophistry can be thus honored. In many 
Pedobaptist works you wall find an amount of lin- 
guistic silliness piled upon these innocent little words 
which is certainly quite stupendous, and quite un- 
necessary. In order to get rid of the force of the 
prepositions which are employed in describing the 
baptism of our Saviour, and the eunuch, (which will 
be examined in subsequent numbers,) they have at- 
tempted to show, by giving certain examples, that 
nothing certain as to the meaning of the original can 
be ascertained from their use. One writer says : 
'^ But we must first premise that the Greek preposi- 
tions translated ^in,' 4nto/ and ^out of,' prove noth- 
ing of themselves ; because, as every Greek scholar 
knows, tJiet/ as often mean ^unto,' 'to/ ^at/ ^near by/ 
^ with,^ and ' from,^ and are so translated in various 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 129 

places in the New Testament." If this be so^ then 
human language is too uncertain, too incapable to 
convey a clear, definite meaning. 

Let me first place before the reader what a learned 
scholar asserts, and, as far as I have seen, his asser- 
tion is as yet unchallenged. Prof. Mell, who has 
proven himself to be not only a scholar, but admira- 
bly qualified for discussion, philological or other- 
wise, says : " It is worthy of note that King James' 
translators give to the prepositions their primary ^ 
usual significations f (there are, however, one or 
two exceptions, as for instance, when they render en 
eudati' with, water;' this I shall recur to;) e?! pri- 
marily and commonly means in ; eis primarily and 
usually means into ; eh primarily and usually means 
out ofT The reader will see the necessity of thus 
understanding the "primary y usual, native meaning of 
eny and eis^ and eh^ v/henever he reads Pedobaptist 
works generally, for they labor hard to destroy the 
testimony which these little particles of the great 
family of words are found giving in behalf of Bap- 
tists. Stuart's rule of interpretation, v/hich he has 
adopted from Ernesti, must be here remembered: 
'' The primary or literal signification of a word must 
ALWAYS be taken, unless the context obviously de- 
mands a secondary signification." Or let him re- 
member what the great English lawyer, Blackstone, 
as quoted elsewhere, says : " Words are generally to 
be understood in their nsual and :most known sig- 



130 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

niiScation ; not so much regarding the propriety of 
grammar as their general and 'popular use/'^ Hence, 
Dr. Carson says, and in keeping with these rules : 
" If the ivords in connection admit the primary and 
usual meaning, it is unwarrantahle to look for an- 
other. Such a use would render the passage inex- 
tricably equivocal/^ I again beg the reader to bear 
these observations in mind. They will be found 
singularly invaluable when you follow Pedobaptist 
explorers in their excursions amid the labarynths of 
the Greek prepositions. 

I will first consider the preposition en. Prof. 
Mell says : '^ The primary meaning of en is in, and 
icith (if any meaning at all) is a remote^ seco7idary, 
signification ; and there is no other preposition in the 
language whose primary meaning is in,^^ But, my 
dear j)rofessor, you are surely mistaken. You a 
professor of Greek in a University, and boldly de- 
clare that the ^^ primary meaning of en is in P You 
did not know that it had been said that e:n was ^'as 
often" translated ^^ icith^^ or ^* af," as it was transla- 
ted '^ in^ In your next edition of your scholarly 
work, you will please correct. But, before I insist 
upon that point, we w^ill all hear you farther, for, 
doubtless, you had some reason for saying what you 
did. He says that en ^^ occurs in the Xew Testament 
two thousand seven hundred and twenty times. It is 
translated at in our common (James) version only 
seventy'Six times." ^^ In more than forty of these 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 131 

seventy-six places it occurs before the name of a city, 
as at Jerusalem, etc., Tvlien it might be properly 
translated m. In about twenty more of the seventy-^ 
six places referred to, it occurs in such expressions as 
these, ' at that day,^ ' at that hour,^ etc. ; so that it 
may be affirmed safely that not ten times in nearly 
three thousand, does the Greek preposition en mean 
simply at in our English version.'^ " If we had time 
to examine ^' the places where it is rendered with, 
(Dr. Summers claims but one hundred and fifty,) ^^it 
could in like manner be shoY/n that the number of 
places where it must necessarily be translated with^ 
is very small.^' He says farther, that '^ en in Greek 
signifies as commonly and as often ' in/ as in does in 
English ^^ signify in. Now, the rule of Prof. Stuart 
and Blackstone must here be observed, and we will 
see exactly how little truth there is in the oft-repeated 
assertions made by Pedobaptist writers with refer- 
ence to m. What becomes of the declaration that 
"in,^^ as every Greek scholar knows, as often means 
'^at,'' or ^Svith,'' or "to,'' &c? Not ten places in 
the New Testament where it necessarily means " at,'' 
and only seventy-six where the Pedobaptist transla- 
tors themselves have thus given it, and only one 
hundred and fifty places claimed by one of the blind- 
est advocates of sprinkling, and out of nearly three 
thousand instances, and still we are gravely told that 
en is as frequently translated "at," "to," or "with," 
as it is in. Besides, be it remembered, that if en 



132 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

does not mean in in its native^ primary signification, 
then the beautiful, perfect Greek language is without 
a word that does primarily mean in. So plain is 
this, that a celebrated Pedobaptist writer upon bap- 
tism (Ewing) contends that en is so obviously the 
parent of m, that it can hardly be called a transla- 
tion. He considers it merely a change of alphabet. 
Carson says : ^' In is an English word as truly as en 
is a Greek one. It is given as an equivalent to en^ 
not because it was formed from it, but because in 
meaning it coincides with it. We adopted that word 
and its meaning also.'^ 

Our translators, I mentioned but just now, have 
translated en ndati " with water.'^ Let us try how 
this manner of translation will answer w^hen applied 
to other portions of the Bible. Take the case of 
Judith. The Greek text is : '' Ehaptizeto en te fa- 
remhole epi tes peges ton udatosT En is to be trans- 
lated, as above, to mean with. We will then have 
this very lucid and admirable rendering: ^^She bap- 
tized (immersed) herself ivitli the camp.^^ Again : it 
is said of John that he was haptizon en te eremo — 
that is, he was ^^ baptizing (immersing) with the wil- 
derness.^^ So with John when at Jordan. It is said 
that '' they were all ehaptizonto en to lordane po- 
tamo^^ — that is, '' they v»^ere all baptized (Immersed) 
of John with the river Jordan.^' The reader ^dll 
see at once how stupidly nonsensical all this would 
be. But not half as much so, if you take the Pedo- 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 133 

baptist at his word, and substitute for baptize or im- 
mersion, the word pour or sprinkle. Only think of 
Judith ''pouring herself loitJi the camp/^ Or of 
John ''pouring vnth the wilderness.'^ A man at- 
tacked with hydrophobia could not possibly object 
to such baptizings as these.* But if you only take 
the primary, usual, common translation, and how 
easy, natural, and simple does all become. Dr. Car- 
son says : " Any translation that may be given of 
en is inconsistent with the supposition that baptizo 
means to pour. We could not swf, ' I pour you with 
water.^ Pour must be immediately followed by the 
thing poured J and not with the person on whom any- 
thing is poured. It is not I pour you y/ith water, 
but I pour water upon you. The syntax, then, of 
the word, as well as its acceptation, forbids pouring 
as the mode of baptism.^^ In confirmation of all 
this, hear what the distinguished Me. Heeyey, of 
England, a Pedobaptist, testifies to iii his ^^ Letters 
to Mr. Wesley.'^ He says, when contending that en 
means m, that " I can prove it to have been in peace- 
able possession of this signification for more than tioo 
thousand years.^' " Every one knows '^ that ivith 
"is not the native, obvious, said literal meaning; 
rather a meaning sivayed, influenced, moulded by the 
preceding or following word/^ We are, therefore, to 
translate en in, ^^ unless the context obviously de^ 
mands a secondary signification;^^ for, says Prof. 

=^I acknowledge myself much indebted to Dr. Mcll for these remarks". 
F 



134 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

Stuart^ "the primary or literal signification must 
always be taken^^ save when this is the case. There 
is force in this remark of Dr. Carson: "A word may 
be used variously, yet be in each of its applications 
capable of being definitely ascertained.^^ 

So much for en ; now a few remarks upon eis. 
The primary meaning of this word is into. The 
primary^ usual meaning of a word is to be alvmys 
taken, says Stuart, unless the "context obviously 
demands a secondary signification/^ Upon this 
word I will give some observations of the great Dr. 
Carson. He says : " Its (eis) more usual significa- 
tion, however, is into, and in general applies when 
the thing in motion enters within the object to which 
it refers. There are instances, however, in w^hich 
the motion ends at the object. It is, therefore, not 
of itself definite. But it is evident that tliere must 
be some way of rendering it definite in each of its 
occurrences, else language would be unintelligible. 
We are not to suppose that when a word is in itself 
indefinite, we are at liberty, in every occurrence of it, 
to understand it as ice will. The sound critic is able 
on all occasions, to limit it by the connection, or by 
circumstances. I observe, then, that as this word 
usually signifies motion to a place ending ivithin the 
place, so it is cdivays to be understood in this sense, 
except circumstances forbid it.'^ This is in accord- 
ance v/ith the rules of Blackstone and Stuart. In 
reply to Dr. Wardlaw, Dr. Carson asks this ques- 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 135 

tion : '^ What preposition in any language is per- 
fectly univocal ? Are there many words of any part 
of speech^ except those expressive of mode^ which 
are perfectly univocal ? Are the above prepositions 
{en and eis) more vague than the prepositions that 
correspond to them in our language? Does it follow 
from a word's having two significations, that no stress 
can be laid on itself^ in determining on the evidence 
of its meaning in any particular situation? If a 
word is sometiuies used in a sense diiferent from its 
usual one, are we at liberty to understand it in such 
unusual signification at random^ as often as it may 
suit our argument ? Were this the case, every sen- 
tence in either would be a riddle. Every time we 
open our lips we use words w^hich are as vague as 
any Greek prepositions, yet the most ignorant are 
not misled by the circumstance. It is only when the 
observation applies to dead languages, that it im- 
poses on those who do not trace arguments to first 
principles. '*'' '*'' '*': Eis^ in rare cases, may be 
translated unto ; but if this will justify us in assign- 
ing ihi^ meaning to it wlien it suits our purpose^ 
nothing could be definitely expressed in human 
speech.^^ He says farther, that " this is a resource 
which if used with respect to English, would expose 
the critic to derision,'^ Why should it not expose 
him to derision in matters of Greek ? 

The primary^ usual signification of ek is out of. 
lu this^ the learned are agreed. Prof Mell says. 



136 ATHAT IS BAPTISM? 

that it not only uaijorralii means out of in its pri- 
mary signification^ as grammarians allow^ '' but there 
is no other preposition in the Greek language which 
has this as its primary signification."' He then 
makes this conclusive remark, that if vou take awav 
eis and eJc the Greeks never conceived of such a thing 
as going into the icater, and if any person or thing 
had ever {riselthen eis) entered into it — then what ? 
Why, dear reader^ this happened surely, '^ there they 
remained forever, ^^ How so ? Because if eh does 
not primarily mean out of, then "their language 
does not indicate that they ever had such a concep- 
tion as coming out of the water ^ or out of anything 
elseJ^ To such a strange and anomalous condition 
would Pedobaptist learning reduce the most highly 
cultivated people of all the world^ speaking and 
writing the most copious, fiexiblcj exact, and beauti- 
ful of all languages, ancient or modern. 

I add a few words upon the preposition ajjo, whose 
primary meaning, according to Dr. Summers, (Metho- 
dist,) isfroyn. It means not only frojn, but, like eJ:^ 
it means o ut of. As a proof of this, turn to Mark 
i : 9, where we read this : lesous elthen apo Xaza- 
ret tes Galilais — ^'' Jesus came from Xazareth of 
Galilee/" &c. Xow, will any one insist that o.jjo 
here only means from ? If so, how could he come 
from oirt of Galilee, which he did, as Isazareth is a 
city situated in it. 

That greatest of all critics in the philosophy of 



WHAT IS BAPTISM ? 137 

language^ Dr. Carson^ offers many profound reflec- 
tions upon the relative uses of apo and eh, I quote 
the following : ^' While they have a common terri- 
tory, each has a provinee of its ov/n. Even when 
apo is used where eh might be used, there is this dif- 
ference, that the former is not definite, and does not 
mark the idea which the use of the other would have 
marked. I call the attention of critics to this dis- 
tinction as one of vast importance, and one v/hich 
has been universally overlooked.^^ '' With respect to 
them, though they may often be used interchange- 
ably, yet eh always implies interposition ; the former 
the point of departure in general.'^ 

I beg leave to specially direct the attention of the 
thoughtful reader to the following pregnant para- 
graph. Says Professor Mell : '^ Is it not a signifi- 
cant fact, that ALL. the Greek v/ords which belong to 
this controversy, from haptizo to eh^ in their primary 
and usual significations testify in behalf of the 
Baptists ; while our opponents depend, for a pre- 
carious support to their practice, upon a secondary, 
femo^ and uncertain signification?'^ That is, the 
Pedohaptists give to words a secondary and uncer- 
tain meaning in order to bolster up their cause, 
whilst Baptists invaeiably give to words their 
primary^ usual, native signification when they w^ould 
justify their own practice. Let the reader apply the 
common-sense rule of Professor Stuart, and the ques- 
tion, "Who is right?" can be easily determined. 



138 WHAT IS BAPTIS]\I? 

Yiell, then, may Prof. Mell affirm^ that it is a ^^re- 
markable fact — naVj iinaccoitntable, if true^ that 
our Saviour Tand the Holy Spirit should use no 
WORD, in connection with this ordinance, in its usual 
and ordinary sense ? That the exigexcies of the 
case should drive our opponents to take such a posi- 
tion, is a significant fact that will leave no iinpreju- 
diced man, of common sense, at a loss to decide which 
are right, we or they.'^ It is precisely upon this line 
of aro^umentation that the Universalist defends his 
cause, and tries to overthrow the pure teachings of 
God. He turns away from the natural, primary, 
usual meaning of terms, and applies to them signifi- 
cations, remote, unusual, and secondary. If the 
Pedobaptists are right in appealing to such a mode 
of interpretation, why may not the Universalist or 
Socinian do likevrise ? Xo cause can be true which 
forces its advocates to resort to such unscholarly at- 
tempts at philological interpretation and criticism. 
If the reader will bear in mind what has been quoted 
in this chapter, I feel assured he will never be per- 
plexed by Pedobaptists in their wormings to evade 
the force of the English translation of the Scriptures, 
or the original Greek. I refer the reader for an ex- 
tended discussion of the prepositions to Carson, Mell, 
and Curtis. The investigations of those eminent 
Pedobaptist Greek philologists, Campbell, Robinson, 
Bloomfield, Stuart, and Bretschneider, have resulted 
favorably to the Baptists. Indeed^ the latest critical 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 139 

work from Pedobaptists (that of Connybeare and 
Howsoii; quoted from in chapter 11^) is quite decisive 
as to the mode of baptism being immersion^ 

I close this number with the following extract 
from Dr. Carson. Let the reader ponder it well : 
'' Is it not absurd to suppose that the Holy Spirit 
would use the three prepositions (en, eis, and eh) all 
in an unusual sense, when there were other preposi- 
tions better suited to his purpose ? The absurdity is 
stil] heightened by the consideration that these pre- 
positions are used in connection with a verb [baptizo) 
which the hardiest of our opponents cannot deny as 
importing, at least in one of its senses, to immerse. 
* -' '••" Is it credible that the Holy Spirit w^ould 
use language so calculated to mislead ? Could there 
be any reason to pitch upon such phraseology, ex- 
cept to deceive? If pouring or sprinkling had been 
ap>pointed^ there u^ere words luhich univocally denote 
these meanings. Why, then, should the Holy Spirit 
pass by these words, and pitch upon a word, accord- 
ing to our opponents, which has, perhaps, a dozen 
significations. If there are prepositions that would, 
in their usual acceptation, express the meaning our 
opponents attach to the three prepositions in ques- 
tion, why should the latter be employed in an unu- 
sual sense ? There never was a greater specimen of 
Jesuitism than that which Dr. Wardlaw here charges 
on the Holy Spirit." 



140 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 



NUMBER XVI. 

The Nature of John's Baptism— "What well-known Pedobaptist authors 
say— It establishes what Baptism is— The Testimony of Learned Pedo- 
baptist s. 

I invite the reader's attention to a very brief con- 
sideration of the nature of John's baptism. My 
object is not to attempt a full or exhaustive treatment 
of the subject^ bnt only to suggest an outline to be 
observed in a more extended argument. Those who 
may desire to see this subject treated more elaborately, 
are referred to the works of Dr. Mell, Wiberg and 
other Baptist authors. 

Was John's baptism, Christian baptism? This 
question is often asked with quite an air of triumph. 
It seems to be regarded by the inquirers as a fore- 
gone conclusion, that the reply must be in the nega- 
tive. Let us see if must necessarily follows. It 
matters not what John's baptism meant — nor how 
much it may have differed from the Christian ordi- 
nance in its design, this much is nevertheless estab- 
lished beyond all question — it does show most clearly 
ivhat baptism is. As Dr. Mell acutely remarks, 
^'If the same vjords that express the act are used in 
Clirisfs ordinance that were used in Johns, and if it 
be shown that in John's these words express immer- 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 141 

sion^ then it follows that the same words, when used 
in the Christian ordinance, express immersion too.'^ 
This observation is certainly just. 

It is certain that both John and the apostles bap- 
ized. If John baptized by immersion, so did the 
apostles, for the very word is used to express the act 
of all — to wit, baptize. It matters not how many 
may have been the administrators, if the act per- 
formed was haptizey then it was identical in each 
case. 

I will show presently that according to able Pedo- 
baptist Greek scholars, John baptized by immersion. 
The same tvord is employed to describe Christian 
baptism. 

I remark again, that John's baptism was from 
heaven, and doubtless he received his commission to 
perform that rite from the Lord Jesus Christ, who 
since Adam- s fall, has reigned supreme in the kingdom 
of grace. But you say, '' John did not live under the 
Christian dispensation. '^ Is that true? "To the 
law and the testimony. '^ Mark calls his ministry 
the "beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ.'^ 
Yes, the beginning of the gospel ? Upon this Thomas 
Scott, the eminent commentator, remarks, " This was, 
in fact, the beginning of the gospel, the introduction 
of the New Testament dispensation.^^ Joseph Ben- 
son, the well known Methodist commentator, says : 
" The gospel of Jesus Christ began '•^' -'^ -•'' with 
the preaching and baptism of John the baptist o"= 



142 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

Whitby, the learned Episcopal commentator, says : 
^^The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the 
^Son of God/ was from the preaching of John the 
Baptist.'^ Luke says : '^The law and the prophets 
were until John ; since that time, the kingdom of 
God is preached, and every man presseth into it/^ 
Peter, in Acts i : 21, asserts the same truth. So John 
did live under the gospel dispensation. This seems 
to be clear enough from these texts. 

But another objection urged is, that the Christian 
dispensation did not commence until after Christ^s 
resurrection. But this is an error, as we have just 
seen, three eminent authors of three different de- 
nominations being the interpreters of the scriptural 
passages. Besides, as you preceive at once, if this 
were really true, it would involve you in a serious 
difficulty, as it v\^ould compel you to place the sacra- 
ment of the Lord's Supper among ^^ the things that 
were'' of the Old Dispensation, as that sacrament 
was instituted by our Saviour before his death upon 
the cross. 

But again you say, was not John's baptism imto 
repentance f The reply is, was not Christ's ordi- 
nance the baptism of repentance ? Do you deny 
this ? What says the Bible ? ^^ Repent and be baj^- 
tized every one of yon in the name of Jesus Christ." 
Luke says that John baptized v/ith the baptism of 
repentance m the name of Jesus Christ too. In 
Acts, viii, the people were '' baptized in the name of 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 143 

the Lord Jesiisy In Acts, xix, we read that per- 
sons ^Svere baptized in the name of the Lord Jesiis.'^ 

Some have urged that John was a prophet. Were 
there not prophets under the gospel dispensation? 
'^ Now there were in the church that was at Antioch, 
certain prophets ^^ &c. Acts xiii : 1. Also, see Acts 
xi : 27, Acts XV : 32. John was, like Judas, and 
Silas, and Paul, a prophet and gospel minister. 

But you farther urge; did not Paul rebaptize 
some of John's disciples at Ephesus ? Dr. Mell says, 
^' Some deny that there vv^as a rebaptism, and main- 
tain that verse fifty was not the language of the his- 
torian, but a continuation of PauFs discourse/^ Now 
there is force in this denial. Look at the scriptural 
record. I have not space for comment. But see 
Pengilly. 

I will only observe that the record seems to teach 
this : That the administrator Y>^as very imperfectly 
informed as to the nature of John's baptism, and had 
administered the rite before they had been properly in- 
structed in the ^^ first principles of spiritual religion — 
before they knew there was a Holy Ghost. But 
when Paul preached to them the full gospel, and thei/ 
received it, they were baptized/' They w^ere bap- 
tized first ^'urdo John's baptism," not by John; for 
he had been dead quite twenty-five years when the 
(so-called) rebaptism at Ephesus took place. John 
did not baptize them, for they had not even "so 
much as heard" of the Holy Ghost; we knew that 



144 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

John wsiS full of the Holy Ghost, and expressly taught 
that the Saviour would baptize with the Holy Ghost. 

That there was no rebaptism at Ephesus, see what 
the learned say. 

Calvin. ^^For myself^ I grant that the baptism 
they had received was the true baptism of John, and 
the very same wdth the baptism of Christ; but I 
deny that they were baptized againJ'^ 

Dr. Knapp says that the baptism of John and 
the Messiah "loas one and the same institute of God 
himself ^^ — that the design was the same ^^ inasmuch 
as it had the same regard to the repentance of the 
candidates, and their faith in Christ, w^hether about 
to come, or having already come.'^ He says no one 
was rebaptized ^Svho professed his faith to have 
been placed in Jesus as the Messiah.^^ 

Beza, Calixtus and Buddeus (according to Ol- 
shausen) take the same view. But if you still in- 
sist that the apostles baptized anew all the disciples 
of John w^hen they entered the visible church, then, 
must not those be rebaptized also who were only 
baptized by Christ's disciples before the sacrament of 
baptism had been instituted by our Saviour f If the 
baptism of John w^as vitiated^ why not theirs ? If 
his was not Christian baptism, neither was theirs. 
According to your view, the Holy Ghost had not yet 
been communicated. But we do not read of any such 
rebaptisms, nor do w^e read of the apostles being re- 
baptized, who had been baptized by John. 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 145 

- I have said that John's baptism clearly establishes 
what baptism is, however much in its design it may 
differ from the ordinance of Christ. Now Jioio did 
John administer the rite of baptism ? Baptists of 
course contend that he invariably immersed his disci- 
ples. I will detain the reader with the testimony of 
as profound scholars as belong to Pedobaptism. It 
is highly important to correctly understand this, as 
John baptized our Saviour, We cannot suppose 
that he changed the mode in the case of Christ. 

De. Towerson says : '' For what need would 
there have been of the Baptist resorting to great con- 
fluxes of Y/ater — were it not that baptism was to be 
performed by immersion ? A very little water, as 
we know it doth with us, sufficing for an affusion or 
sprinkling/' John himself says, '' I indeed baptize 
you {en udati) in water.'' Pengilly says, that ^^ it is 
in water in the Vulgate, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethi- 
opic versions ; it is so rendered by Montanus, and 
recently, in our own country, by that pre-eminent 
scholar, G. Campbell, Principal of Marischal Col- 
lege, Aberdeen, Scotland." Dr. Campbell shows 
that those who translate en to lordane^ in Jordan, 
should also translate e^^i udati, in water. He says 
most truly : ^' It is to be regretted that we have so 
much evidence that even good and learned men allow 
their judgments to be ivarped by the sentiments and 
customs of the sect ivhich they prefer J' Alas ! how 
sadly true ? If men would only divest themselves 



146 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

of prejudice^ and make truth their guiding princi- 
ple^ then Christianity y/ould not be rent and torn by 
factions and parties^ but would be glorious and beau- 
tiful in the unity of sentiment and harmony of co- 
operation which would then distinguish it. But 
men are partizans^ and as Dr. Campbell sagely re- 
marks, " the true partizan, of whatever denomina- 
tion, always inclines to correct the diction of the 
Spiiit by that of party, ^' It is this spirit of party 
which is the fruitful source of the great mass of error 
upon this subject to vv^hich Pedobaptisra clings with 
undying energy. 

Teriulliax, who lived near the time of the 
apostle John, (only about 104 years after,) mentions 
expressly the people vfho were dipped by John in 
the Jordan. 

Db. Adam Clarke, quotes with approbation the 
remark of the celebrated Presbyterian, Lightfoot, that 
^Hhe baptism of John was by phmging t\iQ body.'^ 
The learned and eloquent Bossuet says, ^'The baptism 
of John the Baptist, which served for a preparation 
to that of Jesus Christ, was performed by plung- 
ing T That distinguished Presbyterian scholar, Mac- 
Knight, says that '' Christ was buried under ivater 
by John.^' 

Dr. OlsHATTsen^ the great German Eeformed 
commentator, says, that John baptized in Jordan 
^'because deep water, adapted for immersion , was 
there/' 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 147 

Deylingius, a learned Lutheran^ says, John "re- 
ceived the name Tou Baptistox, from the office of 
solemn ablution and immersion.'' 

Mechialis, another very learned Lutheran, says, 
that ^Hhe baptism of John was by immersion.^' 

Dn. Philip Schaff, one of the foremost scholars 
in America, argues that John baptized by immersion. 
He says that "^ immersion was the original, normal 
form,^' and appeals to John^s baptism to confirm this 
view. 

Dr. Theile, a very distinguished German Pro- 
fessor of Theology, places over the third chapter of 
Matthew this heading : ^' Immersio Jesus,'^ that is, 
the immersion of Jesus, 

Br, Geokge Knapp, says that " John baptized 
by immersionJ^ 

Dr. John A. Bengel, in his celebrated Greek 
Testament, on John iii: 23, (much water) says: ^^So 
the rite of immersion demanded/^ 

Dr. Lange. This very celebrated commentator, 
at page 68 of his vv^ork on Matthew^, says, that ^^John 
administered the rite of submersion himself.^^ Dr, 
L. is the latest and most reliable of German com- 
mentators. 

But it is urged that John's baptism could not be 
Christian baptism, because he did not baptize in the 
name of the Trinity. If this objection is valid 
against John, it will be valid against every baptism 
recorded in the Bible, for there is not one mentioned 



148 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

that was in the name of the Trinity. The inference 
would then be that all Xew Testament baptisms are 
not Christian baptism at all. Who believes this? 

Before leaving the subject of the manner of John's 
baptism^ let us turn to the Bible^ that we may learn 
icliere he baptized. '^ There went out to him Jeru- 
salem and all Judea^ and all the region round about 
Jordan^ and were baptized of him in Jordan ^'^ etc., 
Matt, iii : 56. '' There went out to him all the land 
of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all bap- 
tized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their 
sins/^ Mark i : 5. 

Would any common sense reader, unwarped by 
creeds or tenets, ever conclude from this plain narra- 
tive that the vast multitudes flocked to John and en- 
tered the '^ river of Jordan^^ only to receive a few 
drops of water in the face ? When it is explicitly 
stated that they were all baptized in the river, the 
idea is at once conveyed to the mind that there 2vas 
something in the mode of baptism, tvhich rendered it 
absolutely necessary for them to thus go into the rush- 
ing river. It is a great piece of absurdity for any 
one to gravely contend that it was necessary for per- 
sons to enter a river only to he sprinkled. It pro- 
vokes a smile, when even people now-a-days go into 
the water only to have a few drops flirted in the face. 
'^ The public mind is impressed with the unreason- 
ableness and folly of such a procedure." It was 
necessary for the multitudes to really go into the 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 149 

river or they would not have gone. Immersion is 
baptism^ and immersion made it essential for them 
to enter the baptismal waters. To he poured (what 
English — the idea of ^person being poured) did not 
certainly demand such an act. I think the reader 
will agree with me^ that whatever was the meaning 
of John^s baptism^ that iho; mode was immersion. 



150 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 



NUMBER XVII. 

The Baptism of our Saviour considered— "What Stuart, Rcbinson, Bloom- 
field, Adam Clarke, Campbell, MacKnight, and others say as to the 
Mode— Why Christ was Baptized. 

There are two instances of baptism in the New" 
Testament which are so important^ and so perfectly 
decisive as to what the mode of baptism is^ that I 
shall devote this and another article to their exami- 
nation. I allude to the baptism of our Saviour^ and 
the baptism of the eunuch. 

The baptism of our blessed Saviour is first in im- 
portance. If He was baptized by pouring or sprink- 
ling^ and if He has used the same term which de- 
scribes the mode of His baptism Avhen he commissioned 
his disciples to go forth and baptize, then it is certainly 
too plain for doubt or cavil, that it is our solemn and 
imperative duty to be baptized in the same loay. But 
was He baptized by either pouring or sprinkling ? 
Let us examine carefully the record. I have already 
in some of the earlier numbers given a long list of 
Pedobaptist authorities W'ho have acknowledged 
that our Saviour was immersed. Let us first turn to 
the Bible record : 

Matt. iii. ^^Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? Ui 

Jordan unto John to be baptized of him. But John 
forbade ITim^ sayings I have need to be baptized of 
Thee, and comest Thou to me. And Jesus answer- 
ing, said unto him, Suffer it to be so now : for thus 
it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he 
suffered Mm J' 

Mark i : 9. ^' Jesus came from Nazareth of Gali- 
lee, and was haptized of John in Jordan'^ 

Matt, iii: 16. '^And Jesus, when He was bap- 
tized, W^ENT UP STRAIGHTWAY OUT OF THE W^ATER." 

Mark i : 10. '' And coming up out of the mater y 

Now, the teaching of these passages is so obvious, 
that it ought not to require a w^ord additional to sat- 
isfy every reader that Christ the Redeemer Avas im- 
mersed. But there is no effort too Herculean for 
some writers. It has been denied that those words 
teach that he was immersed. Reader, turn to them, 
and tell me, do they teach pouring or sprinkling? 
If you had never heard that any body of Christians 
practiced what they called baptism by pouring or 
sprinkling, and you wxre desirous of ascertaining in 
what manner our Saviour received that ordinance, 
would you for one moment ever suppose that he was 
baptized by pouring or sprinkling? Upon your 
conscience, answ^er candidly. Is it reasonable that 
John Avould go to the i^iver Jordan, and baptize his 
subjects in that stream, unless the mode were immer- 
sion f Is it reasonable that the Holy Spirit should 
have written that Christ was baptized '' in Jordan/' 



152 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

and that lie ''came up straiglitYv'ay out of the icater^'' 
when after all there was no immersion? Now, must 
not a man be very credulous^ who can believe this ? 
Is he not clearly v/edded to a party and unwilling to 
receive the truth ? Then, when in addition to this, 
we have the word baptizo, Vvdiich, as already abund- 
antly shown, means nothing else but to immerse^ how 
can there possibly be any doubt about the matter ? 
There is none whatever. The Bible declares that 
the disciples of John " were all baptized of him in 
the river of Jordan/^ Professor Stuakt asks this 
pertinent question, " excepting imraersion vvas prac- 
ticed,^^ why should John go to Jordan at all ? 

"Jesus came and was baptized of John in Jordan'^ 
[eis ton lordanen,) That renowned linguist. Prof. 
Eobinson, a Pedobaptist, in his "Lexicon of the 
New Testament,^^ translates this, "vras baptized of 
John into the river JordanJ' Let the reader re- 
member that the primary meaning of eis is into — 
and you at once see that Prof. Robinson has trans- 
lated it correctly — "into the river Jordan.^^ Prof. 
Stuart has laid down a rule which recjuires this. In 
accordance with this rule he translates this sentence — 
Ehaptize eis ton potamon — he " did actually dive into 
the water^^ — he says it cannofc 7nean less. Bloom- 
field, another very learned authority, and a Pedobap- 
tist, gives up that the passage in Mark i : 9, is de- 
cisive in favor of the complete immersion of our 
Saviour in the river. Prof. Stuart lays down a rule 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 163 

(the use of the preposition eis and an accusative after 
haptizo) which makes it certain that the baptism of 
our Saviour (eis ton lordanen) was hy immersion. 
Unless the context obviously demands otherwise^ you 
must give to words their usnal, primary signification. 
Such is the rule of Ernesti and Stuart. Does the 
context demand obviously^ or at all^, any other mean- 
ing for eis than into? With will 7iot answer. 
" Baptized of John toith Jordan" would not be either 
correct or elegant. 

Dr. Adam Clarke^ (Methodist,) at the end of 
Mark, adopting the language of the celebrated Light- 
foot, says : ^' That the baptism of John was by 
plunging the body (after the same manner as the 
washing unclean persons was) seems to appear from 
those things which are related of him, namely : that 
he baptized in Jordan^^^ &c. This is fair and honest. 
John baptized Christ, and as plunging the body was 
John's mode, therefore Christ (according to Light- 
foot and Clarke) must have been immersed. I ap- 
pend a few learned Pedobaptist authorities. 

Dr. George Campbell^s translation of Matt, iii : 
16. ^^ Jesus, being baptized, no sooner rose out of 
the water," &c. 

Doddridge in loco, '^ And after Jesus was bap- 
tized, as soon as he ascended out of^^' &c. 

MacKnigiit. Jesus '^ submitted to be baptized, 
that is, buried under the water by John, and to be 



164 -WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

raised out of it again^ as an emblem of his future 
death and resurrection/' 

Jeeemy Taylor. '' The example of our blessed 
Saviour was by immersion^ 

Here vre liave the opinions of learned and able 
Presbyterians^ Episcopalians^ and Methodists. In 
addition to these, Bede^ Archbishop Usher, Bishop 
Pearce, Dr. Hammond, Bishop Fell, Bishop Stilling- 
fleet, John Locke, Yon Gerlach, Dr. Matthies, Gue- 
rick, Saurin, Jacobi, Tischendorf, Thiele, and other 
eminent divines and scholars among the various de- 
nominations (all too opposed to the Baptists) have 
taken the same view and agree that our Saviour and 
the early Christians were immersed. 

You will find it commonly said among Pedobap- 
tists that our adorable Saviour was baptized as an 
initiation into his irriestly office. I confess that this 
oft repeated assertion deceived me for a long time. 
I forgot two things, v\'hich if remembered and ap- 
plied properly, would have prevented such a blunder. 

1. That Christ belonged to the tribe of Judah, 
and not to the tribe of Levi, to vrhich the priestly 
office was confined. 

2. That Christ vvas '^made a priest after the order 
of Melchisedec, and not after the order of Aaron." 

He, then, who would make Christ's baptism a 
sacerdotal consecration, must forget or override the 
Scriptures of Inspiration. The rite w^hich John ad- 
ministered to Christ was precisely the one he admin- 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 155 

istered to others. But how came Christy who was 
'^ holy^ harmless^ and undefiled/^ to be baptized at 
all ? He had nothing to repent of. His baptism is 
the more wonderful. He had no sins to be symboli- 
cally washed away^ and yet He '' enters the streams 
and bows beneath them^' which are the ^^ emblem of 
His future grave.^' His baptism signified His obe- 
dience to law, for He said, '' Thus it hecometli us to 
fulfill all righteousness.^^ He. G. Campbell ren- 
ders it, '^ Thus it becometh us to ratify/ every institu- 
tion.'' 

Thomas Scott, commenting on this language, 
says : '' We never find that Jesus speaks of himself 
in the plural number^ and it must therefore be al- 
lowed he meant John also^ and all the servants of 
God, in a subordinate sense. It became Christ, as 
our surety and our example, perfectly to fufill all 
righteousness ; it becomes us to walk in all the com- 
mandments and ordinances of God without excep- 
tion, and to attend on every divine institution — as 
long as it continues in force. Thus far Christ's ex- 
ample is OBLIGATORY.' ' 

The Rev. Charles Bradley, a Church-of-Eng- 
land divine, thus writes : '^ He stands here as the 
re'presentative of his people. Now they are an un- 
clean people. '•' '-''' '•'' And now look at the Lord 
Jesus. It matters not how pure He may be in him- 
self, he comes forth as the representative of the impure^ 
and as such he must submit to that ordinance which 



156 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

is emblematical of the cleansiDg they need/' He 
says farther that it is meet and right for Christ that 
^^He should go down into the waters through which 
they have to pass; that He should sanction the ordi- 
nance of His own appointment; that He should teach 
all who come after Him to reverence and ohey it!^ 

WiTSius says : '' Our Lord would be baptized^ 
that He might conciliate authority to the baptism pf 
John — that by His oiun exar}ipley He might commend 
and sanctify our baptism — that men might not he 
loth to come to the haptism of the Lord, seeing the 
Lord was not backward to come to the haptism of a 
servant — that by His baptism^ He might represent 
the future condition both of himself and His fol- 
lowers: first humble^ then glorious; now mean and 
low, then glorious and exalted; that represented by 
IMMERSION, this by EMERSION— and finally 
to declare by His voluntary submission to baptism, 
that He would not delay the delivering up of him- 
self to be IMMERSED in the torrents of hell, yet with 
a certain faith and hope of emerging, ^"^ This is a 
most striking passage, and emanates from one of the 
most learned Pedobaptist scholars that have yet 
lived. 

Pengilly, with pious adoration, remarks : " I 
never can think of the baptism of this glorious and 
divine person — the Son of God — the Lord from 
Heaven — the righteous Judge of the last day — the 
Author of our Salvation, and the Giver of eternal 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 157 

life, but with feelings of the deepest interest. '^ ^^ 
We ought never to forget how He associated His 
people^ His followers, with himself, ^ thus it becometh 
us' — the servant as well as the loed, the members as 
well as the head — ^ to fulfill all righteousness' — all 
that God enjoins and requires." 

Unless John really immersed, why do Pedobaptist 
writers so diligently labor to prove that John's bap- 
tism was not Christian? Or why are they so anxious 
to establish that the baptism of our Saviour was not 
an example for us, unless He were truly immersed f 
They would never become exercised about people 
taking the Holy Jesus for an example, if it would 
not result in their being immersed. But whether 
^^ Jesus was baptized in order to present us an exam- 
ple or not, Sis baptism loas an example of baptism. 
He was baptized. We are to be baptized. The act 
which He performed is the same that we are to per- 
form.'' If He was sprinkled, then we must be sprink- 
led. If He was immersed, then we must be im- 
mersed. What He did, shows ivhat ive are to do. 
Go and read the record in the Bible; then examine 
again the discussion of baptizo ; consult v/hat the 
learned have said relative to its meaning, and also as 
to the baptism of John ; read again the uni vocal tes- 
timony of history as to the corruption of immersion, 
it being substituted by sprinkling, and then decide 
fairly and honestly. Eemember, Christ himself has 
placed His own practical comment upon the mean- 



168 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

ing of the word baptize. What He did, tells us 
what He meant when He said to His disciples, ^' Go 
ye, &c., baptizingj^ This is precisely what He 
means when He commands you, reader, to be bap- 
tized. All believers in Him must be immersed if 
they would obey the command and folloiv the example 
of their Lord and Saviour^ 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 159 



NUMBER XVIII. 

The Baptism of the Eunuch— What Calvin, Towersoii, Doddridge, and 
Starke, say— Immersion clearly made out. 

The other very important instance of baptism to 
which I referred in the preceding number, is that of 
the Ethiopian eunuch. I propose now to examine 
the Bible record. Before going farther, turn to Acts 
viiij and read from the 26th to the 40th verses. 

This personage, whose baptism is thus recorded, 
was evidently a man of some distinction. He was a 
proselyte, as it appears, to the Jewish religion, and 
was returning from a visit to Jerusalem. He w^as 
riding in his chariot and reading the eighth chapter 
of Isaiah, where he refers to our Saviour, when 
Philip met him, as he had been directed by God to 
do. The eunuch is desirous of learning of Philip 
concerning the prophecy, and takes him up in his 
chariot that he may receive his instruction. "Then 
Philip opened his mouth and began at the same 
Scripture, and preached unto him Jesus, And as 
they went on their way, they came unto a certain 
water ; and the eunuch said : See, hei^e is water, 
what doth hinder me to be baptized f Acts viii ; 
35-6- 



160 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

Here note, that nothing had been said by Philip 
about baptism, and yet preaching Christ to him 
makes him fully acquainted with the import of that 
sacrament. When the minister preaches Jesus, he 
necessarily preaches baptism, or the '' whole counsel 
ofGod^Msnot declared/"' The Scripture narrative 
continues : '' And Philip said, If thou believest with 
all thine heart thou mayest. And he answered, and 
said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,'' 
Acts viii : 37. Here we have believer's baptism 
taught. '^Believe with all thine heart.'' You must 
exercise /ai^7^ in the Son of God and ^^thou mayest" 
then be baptized, but not before. The narrative con- 
tinues : 

'' And he (the eunuch) commanded the chariot to 
stand still, and they Vv^ent down both into the water, 
both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him,'' 
Acts viii : 38. Several remarks will be necessary 
upon this verse. 

1. In verse thirty-six we learn that '' they came 
unto a certain water." The question arises, why did 
they delay the act of baptism until this certain water 
'^ was reached," if pouring or sprinkling would an- 
swer? It seems that Philip preached Christ so effec- 
tuallv, that the eunuch was converted, and that after 
that event ^^ they went on their way" until they came 
to this water. Why defer baptism, if sprinMing 
would answer? The eunuch was a man in authority, 

* See Hinton's History of Bap., page 94. 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 161 

had at least one servant Vvdtli bim, had no doubt 
changes of apparel with him as he had been to Jeru- 
salem, and had, in all probability, a sufficiency of 
drinking water, enough for sprinkling purposes at 
least, inasmuch as he was travelling across a country 
which Pedobaptists are so prone to make as bleak 
and destitute as Sahara itself, it being a '' desert'^ 
through which he was passing. And yet the 
eunuch's mind seems never to be excited about the 
idea of baptism until he sees this '' certain water/' 
whereupon he cries out, " "What doth hinder me to 
be baptized?'' 

2. Commanding the chariot to stand still, as he is 
a person of distinction, he v/ill, of course, order his 
servant who w^as driving him, or some other attend- 
ant, to fetch him in a cup he carries, or in a '^ leaf," 
if you please, a little water, as you know '' spHnh- 
ling is the mode," and a very little will answer ; but 
not so : he issues no such order, but he and Philip 
descend from the chariot and '^ they went dowm both 
into the water." Now, if immersion was not the 
object, why did they go into the water ? But you 
answer, you can learn nothing definite from the pre- 
positions as they are variously translated — that eis 
(here translated into) means as often to or nnto^ as it 
does into. I answer that this is simply an error. 
Eis in its primary, usual signification, means into. 
Its meaning can always be ascertained by the cir- 
cumstances or by the meaning of the words with 



162 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

which it stands related. In the text it is — Katebe- 
san eis to udor—^^ they went down i7ito the water/' 
That this translation is right^ will appear from the 
opinions of learned divines/which I will presently 
give, and secondly^ from the various passages in 
which eis is translated into when associated with a 
particular phrase. In Luke xxx, occurs, ^^ A certain 
man {Ivatebainen apo) went dov/n from Jerusalem 
[eis) to Jiericho.'^ That is, into Jericho. Luke xviii .* 
14, " I say unto you he [Katebe) went down {eis) to 
his house/' &c. Who will say that thepublican did not 
enter, but stopped on the outside ? See Luke viii : 
23; John ii : 12; Acts vii : 15; Acts xiv : 25; 
Acts xviii : 22 ; Acts xxv : 6 ; and, indeed, various 
other passages which Prof. Mell gives, to show that, 
according to the use of the phrase in all the other 
places in the New Testament, Katebesan eis to udor 
in the baptism of the eunuch, is to be translated, 
^Hhey went down into the water;'^ 

Prof. Mell, on pages 87 and 88, shows that the ex- 
amples urged to prove that eis means something else 
than into, when the idiom of the Greek is duly ob- 
served, really testify in favor of this translation. 

Pengilly remarks that it was '^ not sufficient to 
come to the umter, for this they had done before; but 
here is a second circumstance — after they had come to 
it, they went down into itJ^ 

Bailey says that ^^ in the book of Matthew, eis is 
translated ijito one hundred and thirty-two times. 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 16^ 

In Mark it is thus translated eighty-two times ; in 
Luke ninety-five ; in John sixty-five, and in Acts 
seventy-seven times. Thus in the first five books of 
the New Testament eis is translated into four hun- 
dred and fifty-one times/^ Mark you, the ordinary 
English version was made by Pedobaptists alone, 
and thus they translate it. 

Now where ivater is mentioned, eis is translated 
into, '' Casting a net into the sea.^^ The swine ran 
^Mown a steep place into the sea.^' '^ The Kingdom 
of Heaven is like unto a net that was cast inio the 
sea.'^ But I refer the reader for similar examples to 
Matt, xvii: 15; Mark i: 9; v: 13; ix: 22; ix: 42; 
Luke viii : 31 ; xvii : 2 ; John v : 7 ; xxi : 7 ; Rev. 
viii: 8; xviii: 21. Let the reader for into suhsti- 
tute at or to and see how these passages will read. 

No wonder that the infidel thanked the Pedobap- 
tist minister when he tried to show that the eunuch 
went to the water but not into it. He said he never 
could believe that Daniel was cast into the lion's den, 
or that the Hebrew boys were cast into the fiery fur- 
nace. After all, then, there was no miracle about it. 
Daniel was only cast at or near the den, and the boys 
only went to or near the furnace. No wonder they 
escaped, {Rev. G. 8, Bailey,) 

It was so with the swine. They only went to the 
sea ^^ and were all drowned on dry ground," {Bailee/,) 
But let us recur to the narrative. 

But the text does not assert that the eunuch alone 



164 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

went, but that ^- they ^YeIlt down both into the water.'* 
This shows that not only the subject, but the admin- 
istrator of the rite went into the water. To remove 
forever all possibility of decent hesitancy, much more 
of quibbling, the Holy Spirit repeats the idea, and 
says, '^BOTH Philip and the eunuch.'^ Xow can it 
be possible that any one vrho is willing, or desirous of 
ascertaining the truth in the matter of the eunuch's 
baptism, can be in doubt as to the mode, when the 
Holy Spirit has thus made it so plain? ^^They 
went down into" — ^'they went down both into the 
water'' — ^''they Vv^nt down both into the water, both 
Philip and the enuuch." Can language possibly be 
plainer? Can mode be more clearly designated? 
Prof. Mell asserts that '^ it is utterly impossible to 
translate literally into Greek the English sentence, 
'^ and they went down both into the water," &c., 
without using the precise ivords and the precise 
structure of the original. " And he baptized him." 
Give baptized here its proper translation, and the 
weight of evidence is overpowering — the case is per- 
fectly made out — and he immersed him. " For this 
solemn act, the circumstances before noticed were 
necessary^ but for any other mode they tvoidd be ab- 
surdy 

The senseless argument contained in almost every 
Pedobaptist book I have consulted, that if you will 
have it that if the eunuch was immersed, then Philip 
was toO; as both are said to go down into the water. 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 166 

&c., does not really merit a reply. Now^ no one not 
blinded by prejudice would ever have any difficulty 
here. Who ever supposed that a Baptist contended 
that '' going down into water'^ was the rite of bap- 
tism? This act of ^^ going down into" is only pr^- 
paratory to the act of immersion. And yet you will 
find this stupid objection in books written by men of 
great ability. Even Richard Watson deals in such 
peurilities. But let us refer to the word again : 

" And when they were come up out of the water/^ 
&c. Now after what has been already said^ I cannot 
suppose that the reader will require any protracted 
remarks upon the Greek text translated '^ come up 
out of the water, ^^ 

But a few observations may not be out of place. 
I contend thatif ^^e^s to udor^ is correctly trans- 
lated into the tvater^ then that " eh tou udatos^ must 
be translated out of the loater,'' If this be not so, 
then Philip and the eunuch went into the water, but 
never came out. Again, Prof. Mell says : '' We 
maintain not only that the primary meaning of ek 
is out of, but that it always has that meaning, spe- 
cially when it denotes the motion of an object from 
one place to another.^^ He says " all the lexicons 
and grammars'^ assert that eh means primarily, out 
of. The reader Avill here remember the rule of 
Ernesti as adopted by Stuart, relative to the condi- 
tion upon which the primary meaning is to be taken, 



166 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

i. e., always, save when the context obviously de- 
mands a secondary sense. 

As to the difficulty of water sufficient for immer- 
sion, it is enough that the Holy Spirit declares that 
immersion took place. It is a mistake besides, to 
conclude that the Hebrews meant a desolate waste. 
Calmet, (Pedobaptist,) says, ^' Some deserts were 
beautiful, and had good pastures/^ The Scriptures 
too, speak of deserts dropping fatness. Dr. Barclay 
speaks of the desert alluded to, as comparatively fer- 
tile and populous. John the Baptist preached in 
the wilderness {desert) of Judea, Matt, iii : 4. The 
word is eremos the same that is used in this place. 
And yet we know what sort of a desert it was. 

Truthfully, then, does Dr. Carson write, when he 
says of the baptism of the eunuch, ^' To a mind 
thirsting to know the will of God, and uninfluenced 
by prejudice, this passage without comment is, in my 
view, amply sufficient. The man who can read it 
and not see iramersion in it, must have something in 
his mind unfavorable to the investigation of truth. 
As long as I fear God, I cannot, for all the king- 
doms of the world, resist the evidence of this single 
document. Nay, had I no more conscience than 
Satan himself, I could not as a scholar attempt to 
expel immersion from this account. All the inge- 
nuity of all the critics in Europe could not silence 
the evidence of this passage. Amidst the most vio- 
lent perversion that it can sustain on the rack, it will 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 167 

Still cry out, immersion, zmmersionJ^ To this judg- 
ment every candid critic and scholar must subscribe. 
Many learned Pedobaptists have admitted this freely. 
I give a few testimonies. 

John Calvin, commenting on the baptism of the 
eunuch, says : ^^ Here we perceive how baptism was 
administered among the ancients.'^ 

Dpv. Towerson. '^ For what need w^ould there 
have been of Philip and the eunuch goi^ig dovm into 
tJiiSy (water,) were it not that baptism was to be per- 
formed by immersiony a very little w^ater, as we 
know it doth v/ith us, sufficing for an affiision or 
sprinkling?'' 

. Starke, (Lutheran.) " And he commanded the 
chariot,'^ &c. Philip ^^ baptized him in the name of 
the triune God, by immersion,^' 

De. Quenstedt, in his ^^ Biblical Antiquities,'^ 
takes the same view. He, too, is a Lutheran. 

Dr. Dcddkidge. '' They both went down to the 
water. Considering hov/ frequently bathing w^as used 
in these hot countries, it is not to be wondered that 
baptism was generally administered ly immersion, 
though I see no proof that it w^as essential to the in- 
stitution. It would be very unnatural to suppose, 
that they went down to the water merely that Philip 
might take up a little water in his hand to pour on 
the eunuch. A person of his dignity had, no doubt, 
many vessels in his baggage, on such a journey 
through a desert country ; a precaution absolutely 



168 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

necessary for travellers in those parts, and never 
omitted by them. See Shawns Travels/^ 

Let it be borne in mind that these authorities were 
not Baptists. We see even in the admissions of the 
devout and conscientious Doddridge the influences 
which education and association wdll impose upon 
the mind. If the eunuch icas immersed, then we 
have the authority of the Bible for asserting that, 
that was clearly the Bible mode. Can any one sup- 
povse that Philip would practice a mode not autho- 
rized by Christ ? Does any one suppose that he did 
not understoMd the ordinance and comprehend the 
import of the vrord baptizo f If so, he is exceed- 
ingly credulous. The unprejudiced mind must be- 
lieve that our Saviour himself ordained that immer- 
sion only should be Christian baptism. He was 
baptized himself by immersion ; His beloved disci- 
ple, Philip, baptized by immersion ; the Greek word 
employed by the Holy Spirit both to describe and 
to coTjimand the use of the ordinance, means to im- 
merse and means nothing else. '^Any departure 
irom this practice is a departure from the revealed 
vyill of God ; and such an act can be received in no 
other light than an act of rebellion against his Divine 
authority." 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 169 



NUMBER XIX. 

The Baptism of Paul— The Baptism of the Philippian Jailor. 

The reader must not understand my purpose in 
these articles to be a discussion of all the contro- 
verted points growing out of the subject of the mode 
of baptism. To do this would require more space 
than the editor could well allow me. I have only 
intended to present those points which interested me 
most and had the most direct and positive influence 
in my ecclesiastical change. The baptism of Lydia, 
and of CorneliuSj of the Holy Ghost^ and of fire ; the 
baptism of suffering, of the Israelites unto Moses ; 
the passage which refers to Noah and the ark, and 
indeed other passages, I have discussed in the book I 
prepared, but I am compelled to omit them in the 
present series. Let us now look at the baptism of 
Paul. The following passages contain all that is re- 
quisite : 

^^And now, why tarriest thou? Arise, and be 
baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the 
name of the Lord.'^ Acts xxii : 16. 

'^ And immediately there fell from his eyes, as it 
had been scales; and he received sight forthwith, 
and arose; and was baptized," Acts ix : 18. 



170 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

Ananias simply said to Paul, ^^ Arise and be bap- 
tized, (immersed) and wash away thy sins/^ Now, if 
Paul were immersed in pure ^vater, washing would 
be an effect. We are compelled to stick to the pri- 
mary meaning when the sense does not '^obviously 
demand^^ a secondary one. In Kings ii, v: 14^ 
Elisha directs Naaman to ^^go and wash seven times 
in Jordan.'^ Now, Naaman went and plunged him- 
self seven times in Jordan. So says Prof. Stuart. 
Here is his translation: ^^Naaman went down and 
plunged himself {ebaptisato) seven times in Jordan.^^ 
He was directed to ivash^ and yet he '' plunged him- 
self. ^^ So also says that eminent scholar, Prof. 
Robinson, he using '^dipped^^^ instead of Prof. Stu- 
art's "plunged." Both, mind you, are learned Pedo- 
baptists. If Naaman had lived now, and had been 
directed to repair to some stream and ivash himself 
in the water, it is highly probable he Vv^ould have 
only stood on the bank and sprinlded himself very 
slightly. If his physician had employed the Greek 
of the Septuagint, and he had been studying the 
meaning of haptizo and the prepositions en and eis as 
they are explained by sundry modern sciolists, no 
one can possibly doubt what Naaman would have 
done. 

The washing away of sins, alluded to by Ananias, 
was merely the outivard sign — the symbolizing of the 
baptism of the Spirit, or regeneration. Paul had 
been converted already, and water baptism was there- 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 171 

fore resorted to that spiritual baptism might have a 
fitting symbol or emblem. 

Various Pedobaptist writers insist that Paul was 
too weak to be immersed^ and yet they dwell upon 
his ^^ standing up'^ when he received the rite. If 
sprinkling or pouring had been the mode, he might 
have reclined. There was no necessity why he 
should ^SstancV^ at all. If the Bible had stated that 
Paul was too weak to sit up, but was baptized in a 
reclining posture, they would have exclaimed at once : 
^^ Do you not see, he could not have been immersed, 
for he was baptized reclining upon a couch f But 
it states '' he arose and was baptized^^ — -the very thing 
he ought to have done to receive immersion — and 
they claim that the record is against the idea of bap- 
tism in that way. They are very hard to please. 

Many writers would have you believe that anastas, 
he arose^ means not only '^ standing up,^^ but that he 
continued standing still. But this is not so. A high 
authority says, '^' it indicates motion^ fre'paratory to 
departure from a placeP It is, therefore, really used 
to state that Paul ^^ moved off.^' Dr. Mell shows the 
absurdity of the Pedobaptist gloss. The same Greek 
word is used in the following passages. ^^ Saul arose 
and got him up to Gilgal.^' '' David arose and fled 
for fear of Saul." ^^Saul rose up out of the cave 
and went." But poor Paul must '' arise'^ and con- 
tinue to stand still. Saul was allowed by the Greek 
word to stand up and to go out. " Saul stood up. 



172 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

and got him up to Gilgal — i. e., (says Dr. Mell with 
fine irony^) " he went standmg,^' But Paul (anastas) 
stood up J but that is all : in his case no motion is in- 
dicated. The truth is that the verb anistemij from 
which anastas comes^ occurs several times in the 
chapter which records PauFs baptism^ and its use 
shows that it was an act preparatory to something 
else. Paul, therefore, arose^ preparatory to his being 
immersed. We read: '' Arise ^ and go into the city.'^ 
Was he " to stand still ^^ in doing this ? " Arise^ 
(anastas) and go into the street which is called 
straight.^' Was this done by Ananias' standing 
still? Paul ^^ (2r(?s^, and was baptized." Does this 
prove that he was ^^ standing still '^ when he received 
the rite of baptism ? No one, with these and many 
other examples, (to which he is referred,) before him, 
can doubt that arise here was only a preparatory acty 
and not an indication of his posture while undergo- 
ing baptism. I believe Paul was immersed^ because 
he tells us himself that it was a burial: ^^ Therefore 
we are buried with Christ by baptism.^' Pedobap- 
tists will have it, to make good their practice, that 
he was sprinkled ; but Paul says he was ^' buried 
with him (Christ) in baptism.^^ When I come to 
discuss these passages, the reader will more clearly 
discern the force of Paul's language. I believe Paul 
was immersed, because the w^ord used (baptizo) to 
express the act means, as we have seen, to hnmerse,^ 
and nothing else. 



WHAT is BAPTISM? 173 

But was there water enough ? Paul was at Da- 
mascus. The Bible says there were rivers there. 
" Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus^' 
&e., II Kings v : 12. In addition, there were 
"baths, and pools, and fountains, throughout the 
East,'^ So says Dr. Hibbard, a distinguished 
Methodist. So says the Encyclopsedia of Religious 
Knowledge. Home, in his celebrated work, ^' In- 
troduction to the Bible,^^ gives similar testimony. 
So there must have been water enough to baptize one 
convert. 

THE BAPTISM OF THE PHILIPPIAN JAILOR. 

Paul and Silas had been cast into prison, and were 
delivered by the miraculous interposition of Deity. 
At midnight the doors are thrown open as the prison 
is violently shaken, and the prisoners' bands are un- 
loosed. The jailor seeing the -doors open, is about 
to kill himself, supposing the prisoners have fled, 
Paul assures him of their presence. The jailor then 
calls for a light, and springing in, falls at the feet of 
Paul and Silas, '' and brought them out, '''" '" '* 
And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and 
to all that were in his house. And he took them the 
same hour of the night and washed their stripes, and 
was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And 
when he had brought them into his house he set 
meat," &c. 

Now, was the jailor immersed or sprinkled? I 



174 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

stand by the Bible. The Holy Spirit says he was 
immersed — the word means that and nothing else — ■ 
and as a lover of God^s word, I am compelled to be- 
lieve it. But let us look at the order of events. 
The reader will perceive three removals in the narra- 
tive. 

1. The jailor brought Paul and Silas out — out of 
w^hat ? The inner prison, I answer. See verse 30. 
Here is removal first 

2. They subsequently ^' spake unto him the word 
of the Lord, and to all that ivere in the house. And 
he took them the same hour of the night, and washed 
their stripes; and was haftized^ he and all his straight- 
way." 15.Qx^\^ removal second. They were in the 
jailor's house; they were then taken to some place 
where they were washed. The jailor then went to 
some proper place, and he and his believing house- 
hold were straightway immersed. 

3. After baptism, then the jailor "brought them 
into his house.'' Verse 34. Here is removal third. 

But was there water enough for immersional pur- 
poses ? The Holy Spirit will always provide water 
enough for the performance of the ordinance of im- 
mersion. No one now can tell where that prison 
stood. The river may have laved its very founda- 
tions. Who can tell ? We know the East abounded 
in pools and tanks. 

But, be this as it may, I cannot doubt that the 
jailor was immersed. Paul we knew regarded bap- 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 1?8 

tism as a burial^ and he either baptized the jailor or 
witnessed it. ^o one can believe he would call a 
different act baptism, or that he would violate God^s 
command. 

But as to PauFs breach of faith by going out of 
the prison, this may be said. He voluntarily came 
back. He never left his prison in order to effect his 
escape. Besides^ Peter, we knov^, left his prison and 
did not return* God sent an angel to liberate him. 
Did Peter violate an ^^ ordinance of God ?^^ I be- 
lieve the whole account is consistent and natural if 
we claim that the jailor was immersed. Why should 
they have gone out of the house if uprinhling was to 
be performed ? 



176 WHAT is BAPTISM? 



NUMBER XX. 

Examination of Mark vii: 3-4— What Beza, Grotius, MacKnight, Meyer, 
Starck, Kitto, Olshausen, and others say— Dr. Hodges' comments ex- 
amined . 

In this number I desire first to direct the reader's 
attention to a passage of Scripture^ the teaching of 
which is often misunderstood and perverted. It oc- 
curs in Mark vii : 3-4. '' For the Pharisees^ and all 
the Jews^ except they wash {nipsontai) their hands 
oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And 
when they come from the market, except they wash, 
(haptizontai^ they eat not. And many other things 
there be, which they have received to hokl, as the 
washing (baptismous) of cups, and pots, brazen ves- 
sels, and of tables." This is the version of our com- 
mon English Bibles. 

The following is the revised translation by the 
American Bible Union : '^ For the Pharisees, and all 
the Jews, except they carefully wash their hands, do 
not eat, holding the tradition of the elders. And 
coming from the market, except they immej^se them- 
selves {baptizontai, middle voice, immerse themselves) 
they do not eat. And there are many other things 
which they have received to hold, immersions of 
cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and couches.'' 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 177 

I expect to satisfy the candid and careful reader 
that in the material points^ the latter translation is 
the correct one. 

1. The first pointy we learn, is, that the Jews 
wash their hands carefully before they eat; and Mark 
says, that it is ^^a tradition of the elders/^ 

2. The next point to be considered is, the diifer- 
erence between the words used to express the washing 
resorted to before eating, and that used after they 
have returned from the market. The reader will 
have seen in the above brackets that the words em- 
ployed by the Holy Spirit are different. In the for- 
mer it is nipsontai ; in the latter haptizontai. I wish 
to show the reader that these words are not used in- 
terchangeably — do not mean the same thing. 

There are two kinds of v/ashing in this passage : 
one of constant^ every day occurence ; the other com- 
paratively rare, and performed only after a person 
had been to market, and consequently exposed to 
personal contact with those deemed defiled. The 
one occurred before meals — the other was resorted to 
only on particular occasions. Prof. Eipley, (Bap- 
tist,) judiciously remarks : " In examining the whole 
passage, the attentive reader will perceive an ad- 
vance in the thought. If ordinarily the hands were 
washed before eating, the reader is prepared to hear, 
that after returning from a mixed croivd of people, 
something different from, or additional to this wash- 
ing, was performed.'' 



178 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

The law of Moses required divers immersions, 
Paul alludes to tlierii and calls them ^^ divers hap- 
tisms/' or immersions. The reader is referred to 
Leviticus xi : 32^ and Lev. vi : 28^ where he will 
learn that PauPs divers baptisms were really divers 
immersions. It is not^ then, a matter of surprise 
when we learn that punctilious Jews, tvho held the 
traditions of the elders, in their over- weaning careful- 
ness, '^ found fault'^ when they saw the disciples of 
Christ eat bread without previously washing their 
hands. They were required by the law of Moses to 
bathe only when they had actually contracted cere- 
monial impurity. See Lev. xv : 5. Now, to wash 
the hands often or carefully, the Greek word nipto is 
used ; but to express a more thorough purification, 
(such as is enjoined in Lev. xv : 5,) and which they 
thought necessary after going to market, they used 
haptizo. That renowned scholar Beza, says, " Bap- 
tizesihai, in this place, is more than nip)tein ; because 
that (the former) seems to respect the whole hody, 
this (the latter) only the hands, Nor does haptizein 
signify to wash, except by consequence. To be bap- 
tized in water signifies no other than to be immersed 
in water." His view supports that of Prof. Eipley 
above. The learned Grotius, on this passage, says : 
^' They cleansed themselves more carefully from der 
filement contracted at the market to wit, by not only 
tuashing their hands, but even by immersing their 
body/' MacKnight remarks also: ^^For when 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 179 

they come from the markefc, except they dip them- 
selves, they eat not/' Dr. Meyer says : " The ex- 
pression is not to be understood of the washing of the 
hands, but of the immersing^ which the word always 
means in the classics and the New Testament. '*' ''" 
Before eating, they ahvays observe the washing of 
hands, but (employ) the hath v/hen they come from 
the market,'^ 

Yatablers, a distinguished professor of Hebrew, 
of Paris, says on this passage : '^ They bathed them- 
selves all over,'^ Spencer, on the Kitual Laws of 
the Hebrews, says : ^^ Some of the Jews, ambitious 
for the credit of superior purity, frequently immersed 
their whole persons in water, '^ Starck says : ^^The 
baptisms with the Jews were not by sprinkling, but 
in addition to washing the whole body, an entire im- 
mersiony The Encyclopedia of Religious 
Knowledge says, that the '^ legal pollutions'^ of 
the Jews " were generally removed by bathing. '^' *^' 
The person polluted plunged over head, in the water,'' 
&c, Fritsche, in his commentary, says on the 
above passage : '' When they have come from the 
market, &c., they do not eat unless they have washed 
their body. Thus Beza and Grotius explain the 
passage most rightly." 

Olshausen says ; '^ Baptismous is here ablution, 
washing generally." ^' Baptizesthai is different from 
niptesthai ; the former is the dipping or cleansing of 
food that has been purchased, to fr€« it from impuri- 



180 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

ties of any kind.'^ Kitto^s Cyclopaedia of Bib. 
Lit. says : "The hands were lolimged in water J^ It 
says that the complaint of the Jews was not that the 
disciples " did not at all wash their hands, but that 
they did not phtnge them ceremonially according to 
the practice." Scaliger says : "The more supersti- 
tious part of the Jews -'* '-•'' dipped the tvhole 
lodyT LiGHTFOOT, "VVetstein, Eosexmullee, and 
KuiNOEL, although they argue that the washing had 
reference to the hands only, yet distinctly assert that 
baptize meant the immersing of the hands. With 
these authorities agree such eminent Pedobaptist 
scholars and critics as Schleusner, Scapula, Stockius, 
Dr. G. Campbell, Hammond, Heumann, Altingius, 
Maldonatus, and Lange. 

The Pharisees were full of superstition. Mai- 
MONIDES says : " If they touched but the garments 
of the common people they were defiled — and needed 
immersion ; hence, when they walked the streets they 
walked on the side of the way, that they might not 
be defiled by touching the common people.^^ 

Rabbi SALMOXsays: "Not only the hands and 
feet were washed, but the whole body.^^ Maimo- 
nides says also that "if a man dips himself all oyer 
except the tip of his little finger^ he is still in his un- 
cleanness.^^ Who is surprised then to hear them 
b3rating the disciples because they eat without so 
much as washing the hands. So the passage under 
consideration does not teach that nipsontai and bap- 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 181 

tizontai are used interchangeably. The former 
teaches us that the Pharisees often wash their hands ; 
the latter, that they immerse themselves on certain 
occasions. I have dwelt thus long on this point, be- 
cause in my Pedobaptist days I was taught to rely 
strongly upon this passage to show that baptizo did 
not mean dipping, and was not a specific term 

But if Pedobaptists pervert this part of the passage 
to the misleading of the ignorant, they are no less 
guilty in their specious and unfair comments upon the 
latter part of the passage which refers to the ^^ wash- 
ing (baptismoiis) of cups, and pots, and brazen ves- 
sels, and tables." 

I find that Wesley, Fairchild, Hibbard, Peters, 
Hall, Hodges, and, indeed, nearly all Pedobaptist 
writers, resort to the same sort of ridicule and the 
same misstatement of facts in their sophistical manipu- 
lations of this passage. As a specimen of Pedobap- 
tist learning and criticism I quote the following from 
the work of Dr. Hodges on baptism. " Were all 
these plunged under water ? (for this, we are informed, 
is also the meaning of immersion.) Tables (Jclinon) 
twenty/ feet long and four feet wide and high f Or 
couches large enough to accommodate several persons 
to recline upon at meals, and often fastened to the 
wall ? Were these carried to some place to plunge 
them under water ? Their brass kettles and cooking 
utensils all purified in the same way ? Were all the 
people in that comparatively rude age prepared and 



182 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

able to perform sucli ablutions ? Let comraon sense 
answer. ^ ^ ^ ^ j^^^ -j^^^ easily could they 
sprinkle their couches and brazen vessels, but how 
inconvenient — aye, impossible in some cases — to 
plunge them all under water." There is much more 
of the same sort. I will show the reader that there 
is much misapprehension displayed throughout* Let 
him candidly consider the following facts : 

1. Dr. H. asserts that the tables were tioenty feet 
long. Jahn, in his celebrated work on Archeology, 
page 156, says : '' The table in the East is a piece 
OE ROUND LEATHER Spread iipou the floor, upon which 
is placed a sort of stool. This supports nothing but 
the platter. The seat was the floor, spread with a 
mattress, carpet, or cushion, upon which those who 
ate, sat with legs bent and crossed.'^ How diS'erent 
this from the enormous tables "twenty feet long, and 
four feet wide and high." 

HoRNE, in his valuable and learned work, "Intro- 
duction to the Bible," vol. ii, page 172, says : " The 
ancient Hebrews at their meals had each his separate 
table,'' Of course, they were all "twenty feet long, 
and four feet high and wide." If so, they doubtless 
took their meals out of doors, as a family could 
scarcely be accommodated within. Now, could not 
these tables, only large enough for one person, be im- 
mersed, or plunged, as any ordinary garment ? The 
law of Moses required, that they should be immersed 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 183 

whenever ceremonially unclean. See Lev. xi : 82 ; 
XV : 5, 21, 27 ; xvii : 15. 

2. But let us look at Dr. Hodges' '' couches large 
enough to accommodate several persons to recline 
upon at meals, and often fastened to the wall." It is 
quite apparent that the writer has a regular modern 
lounge or sofa in his mind. He evidently has not 
consulted the authorities as to the character of East- 
ern couches or beds. Let us see what they say : 

Calmet. '' The word bed is in many cases calcu- 
lated to mislead and perplex the reader." Just so 
with Dr. H. He is evidently both " misled and per- 
plexed " But continues Calmet : " The beds in the 
East are vert/ different from those used in this part of 
the world." It is often nothing more than " a cotton 
quilt folded double.'^ 

KiTTo's Cyclopaedia, Art. Beds. ^' Orientals gen- 
erally lie exceedingly hard. Poor people sleep on 
matSj or wrapped in their outer garment. ^^ "^ The 
more wealthy classes sleep on mattresses stuffed with 
wool or cotton, which are often no other than a quilt 
thickly padded.'' Now could there possibly be any 
difficulty in immersing those beds or couches ? So 
table or couch, (as you may translate the word Mine,) 
it matters but little ; you could easily immerse either 
or both. 

Richard Watsois", the ablest of Methodists, in his 
^^ Biblical Dictionary," Art. Beds, says: ^'Mattresses 
or thick cotton quilts folded, were used for sleeping 



184 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

upon. These were laid upon the quan or divan, a 
part of the room elevated above the level of the rest, 
covered with a carpet in winter, a fine mat in sum- 
mer. * "^ The mattresses are rolled up, carried 
away, and placed in a cupboard till they are wanted 
at night. And hence the propriety of our Lord's 
address to the paralytic, '^ Arise, take up thy hed and 
walk." These could be easily ^Zim^^ec?. 

Maimonides says that beds '' are washed by cover- 
ing them with water." He says, *'they dip all un- 
clean vessels." He says both ''molten vessels and 
glass are dipped,'' So there is no difficulty about 
the immersing of " brass kettles and cooking uten- 
sils," as Dr. H. seems to apprehend. Well, after all, 
I think the reader will conclude with me that the 
Holy Spirit spoke truthfully, Pedobaptist denials and 
ridicule to the contrary, notwithstanding. 



■WHAT IS BAPTISM? 185 



NUMBER XXI. 

Examination of Komans vi : 3-5, and Colos. ii : 12 — Opinion of Stuart, 
Haldane, Wail, Tillotson, Clarke, and many others— What the Fathers 
say. 

Rom. yi : 3-5. " Know ye not, that so many of 
us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized 
into His death ? Therefore, we are hurled vnth Sim 
by baptism into death ; that like as Christ was raised 
from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we 
also should walk in newness of life. For if we have 
been planted together in the likeness of His death, 
we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection.'^ 

Colos. iil2. ^^ Buried vnth Him in baptism/^ &c. 

It ought not to be necessary to expend any time or 
labor over these passages. 

Prof. Stuart admits that " 7nost commentators 
have maintained that buried here has a necessary 
reference to the mode of literal baptism, ivhich, they 
say, was by immersion ; and this, they think, affords 
the ground for the employment of the image used by 
the apostles, because immersion (under the water) 
may be compared to a burial^ (under the earth.^^) 
Here are two important admissions. 1. The admis- 
sions of most commentators. 2. The mode of apos- 
tolic baptism. 



186 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

I adopt HALDANE^s Comment in his famous work 
on Romans: ''The death of Christ was the means bv 
which sin was destroyed, and his burial the proof of 
the reality of his death ; Christians are, therefore, 
represented as buried with him, by baptism, into his 
death, in token that they really died with him ; and 
if buried with him, it is not that they shall remain in 
the grave, but as Christ arose from the dead, they 
should also rise. Their baptism, then, is the figure 
of their complete deliverance from the guilt of sin, 
signifying that God places to their account, the death 
of Christ as their own death. It is also a sign of 
their purification and resurrection for the service of 
God.'^ 

Another writer says : " In our baptism there is a 
literal burial, and a literal resurrection, and these 
literal things are signs and emblems of the spiritual 
things. The figure is full and clear.^^ Paul evi- 
dently perceives a striking resemblance between the 
baptism and the burial of a subject. The great mass 
Oi learned commentators for fifteen hundred years, 
belonging to every sect and school of theology, have 
so understood it. 

Dr. Wall, (Episcopalian.) ^' St. Paul does twice^ 
in an illusive way of speaking, call baptism a buriaV^ 
He says this fixes the question that in ancient bap- 
tism ''the wliole body^^ was '''put under water. ^^ 

Archbishop Tillotson, (Episcopalian.) " An- 
cientlyy those who were baptized, were immersed and 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 1S7 

hurled in the water to represent their death to sin," 
&c. He says the apostle alludes to it in the above 
passages. 

Archbishop Secker, (Episcopalian.) '^JBurying, 
as it were, the person baptized in the water, and 
raising him out again, without question, was anciently 
the more usual method; on account oi which (bury- 
ing the person baptized in water) St. Paul speaks of 
baptism as representing both the death, burial, and 
resurrection of Christ, and what is grounded on them — 
our being dead and buried to sin, and our rising again 
to walk in the newness of life." Lee. on Cat. L. 

XXX. 

Dr. Samuel Clarke, (Episcopalian.) " We are 
buried with Christ hy baptism, ^e. In the primitive 
times the manner of baptizing was by immersion, 
^•f <i 5> j^ ^yg^g ^ r^^^y significaut emblem of the 
dying and rising again, referred to by St. Paul, in 
the above passage.^^ Epis. Ch. Catechism, p. 294. 

Dr. Wells, (Episcopalian.) In commenting on 
Eom. vi : 4, he says : '' St. Paul here alludes to im- 
mersion '''* '" -'' '^ which he intimates did 
typefy the death and burial,^' &c. 

Bishop Nicholson, (Episcopalian.) '^In bap- 
tism, by a kind of analogy or resemblance, while our 
bodies are under the water, we may be said to be 
BURIED with Him.^^ Epis. Ch. Cat., p. 174. 

Dr. Doddridge, (Presbyterian.) '^Buried with 
him^ ^c. It seems the part of candor to confess^ that 



18S WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

here is an allusion to the manner of baptizing by 
immersion/^ 

Bloomfield. '' There is here plainly a reference 
to the ancient mode of baptism by immersionJ^ 

RoSENMULLER. '' Immersion in the water of bap- 
tism and coming forth out of it, was a symbol of a 
person renouncing his former life, and on the con- 
trary beginning a new one. The learned have re- 
minded us that on account of this emUematieal 
meaning of baptism, the rite of immersion^ ought to 
have been retained in the Christian church/' 

Dr. Knapp, whose works are recommended by 
the able Dr. "Woods, of Andover, says: "We are, 
like Christ, buried as dead persons by baptism, and 
should arise, like Him, to a new life.^^ "The image 
is taken here from baptized persons, as they were 
immerged (buried,) and as they emerged (rose 
again. '^) 

Dr. Hammond, (Episcopal.) "It is a thing that 
evert/ christian hnotvSj that the immersion in bap- 
tism refers to the death of Christ : the putting of 
the person into the water denotes and proclaims the 
death and burial of Christ.^' 

Bishop Hoadly, (Episcopal.) "If baptism had 
been then performed as it is now among us, we 
should never so much as heard of this form of ex- 
pression, of dying and rising again in this rite.^' 

Martin Luther. "Baptism is a sign of both 
death and resurrection. Being moved by this reason^ 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 189 

I^ would have those to be baptized^ to he altogether 
dipped into the water j as the word doth express mistery 
signify^ 

Westminster Assembly of Divines, consisting 
of fifty eminent ministers, in Anno on Rom. vi : 4. 
'' In this phrase, the apostle seemeth to allude to the 
ancient manner of baptism, which was to dip the 
parties baptized, and, as it were, bury them under 
water /^ 

Wm. Tyndale. ^' The plunging into the water 
signifieth that we die and are buried with Christ." 

Dr. Manton, (Episcopal.) " The putting the bap| 
tized person into the water, denoteth and pro- 
claimeth the burial of Christ.^^ 

Dr. Whitby, (Episcopal.) ^'It being so ex- 
pressly declared here, that we are buried with Christ 
in baptism by being buried under the water,^' &c. 

Archbishop Leighton, (Episcopal,) ^^The dip- 
ping into the water representing our dying with 
Christ, and the return thence, our rising with him./^ 

But these are more than enough, I have before 
me similiar testimony from Burkitt, Olshausen, Dr. 
Storr, R. Newton, Baxter, Bishop Smith, of Ken- 
tucky, Dr. Chalmers, Cranmer, Scudder, Pictetus, 
Bengellius, Goodwin, John Edwards, Edinburgh 
Reviewers, Suicer, Bingham, Bishop Sherlock, Bishop 
Warburton, Saurin, Matthies, Jaspis, Frankins, Tur- 
retin, Theophytact, Leo, Tholuck, Winer, Lange, Jor- 
tin, Serperville, BurmannuS;, Peter Martyn, Albert 



190 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

Barnes, Estius Braiinus, Dr. Boy, Bheinard, Bishop 
Burnett, Cardinal Cajitan, Cave, Bishop Daverant, 
Bishop Fell, Quenstedt, Ch. Starke, Knapp, Wesley, 
Clarke, Whitfield, Connybeare, and Howson. Others 
could be added even to this long list. 

Besides these, nearly (possibly) all the early Chris- 
tian writers so interpret these passages. I have be- 
fore me the opinions of Chrysostom, Ambrose, Cyril 
of Jerusalem, Gregory, Nyssen, Apostolical Consti- 
tutions, Damascenus, Athanasius, Basil the Great, 
Justin Martyr, Theodoret, Dionysius Areopagus, 
Clement of Alexandria, Fourth Council of Toledo, 
Photius, Gelatuis, Gregory, Pelagius, Augustine. 
These all take the above view. 

And yet, in the face of the obvious meaning of 
the language of Paul, and the united opinions of 
almost all learned commentators and authors, some 
recent writers have attempted to give a different in- 
terpretation. Why this ! Evidently to get rid, if 
possible, of the decisive testimony which these pas- 
sages give in favor of the rite of immersion. I leave 
the subject with the reader. It influenced me : I 
hope it will influence him. I conclude with the 
words of another : 

^^When one has died, he is afterwards buried. 
Our conversion was our death to sin. Our baptism 
was our burial, to testify in the most solemn and im- 
pressive manner that we had renounced the world 
and siu; and henceforth we were to live a new life of 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 191 

holiness/^ Reader, have you so testified? If con- 
verted, it is your imperative duty to be ^^ buried with 
Christ by baptism into his death/^ 



192 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 



NUMBER XXII. 

Metaphorical use of Baptize— Luke xii : 50, Examined— What Witsin?, 
Doddridge, and others say— I Cor. x : 12, Examined— What MacKnight, 
Whitby, Stuart, and others testify— Romans yi; 2-i, and Col. ii; 12— 
Additional Remarks. 

In this number I wish to investigate the meta- 
phorical use of baptizo in the jSTew Testament. I 
wish to ascertain if it does teach immersion, and not 
pouring or sprinkling. Let us examine, first, Luke 
xii : 50, where our Saviour says : ^^ I have a bap- 
tism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened 
till it be accomplished." Xow, what does our 
Saviour mean by this way of speaking? Let us 
hear what the learned have to say. Mark, I quote 
from the opponents of the Baptists. 

Peof. Stuart. '' I am about to be ovenchelmed 
with sufferings, and I am greatly distressed with the 
prospect of them." 

Bloomfield. ^^ This metaphor of immersion in 
water, as expressive of being overwhelmed by afflic- 
tionj is frequent, both in the scriptural and classical 
writers." On Matt, xx : 22. 

WiTSius, '^ Immersion into the water, is to be 
considered by us, as exhibiting that dreadful abyss of 
Divine justice, in which Christ; for our sins, was for 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 113 

a time, as it were, absorbed ; as in David, his type, 
he complains, Psalm Ixix : 2 : ^ I am come into deep 
waters, where the floods overflow me/ ^^ 

DoDDEiDGE. ^' I have, indeed, a most dreadful 
baptism to be baptized with, and know that I shall 
shortly be hatlied^ as it were, in blood, and plunged 
in the most overivhelming distress.'^ 

Heryey. ^^ He was even straitened, under a kind 
of holy uneasiness, till the dreadful work was accom- 
plished : till he was baptized with the baptism of 
his sufferings, bathed in blood, and plunged in 
death/' 

Rev. and Sir H. Trelawney. " Here, I must 
acknowledge, our Baptist brethren have the advan- 
tage ; for our Redeemer's sufferings must not be 
compared to a fezo drops of water sprinkled on the 
face, for he was plunged into distress, and his soul 
was environed with sorrows/^ 

Now, these opinions are from Pedobaptist scholars, 
and are in consonance with the text. No one who is 
familiar with the Divine record, and knows of the 
agony that wrung our Saviour's soul amid the dark- 
ness of Gethsemane's garden, when he sweat as it 
were great drops of blood, or of his cruel sufferings 
and death upon the rugged tree as it was placed upon 
Calvary^s sterile heights, can tolerate, for a moment, 
that mode of interpretation which would represent 
those terrible scenes and agonizing sufferings by a 
few drops of suffering lightly sprinkled. ^^ All who 



194 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

know his history, perceive that he was immersed in 
suffering, but, sustained by Divine power, he did not 
sink in the deep sea of trouble/''*^' Again : ^^ If our 
Lord intended the ordinance of baptism to exhibit 
an image of the overwhelming sorrows of the soul in 
the garden and the cross, his intention is frustrated 
by the change of immersion into sprinkling/^f 

The next passage that merits particularly our at- 
tention is that which relates to the metaphorical bap- 
tism of the Israelites when passing through the Red 
Sea, as they were fleeing from the pursuing Pharaoh. 
ICor. x: 12. ^^ Moreover, brethren, I would not 
that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers 
were under the cloud and all passed through the 
sea, and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud, 
and in the sea.'^ 

Instead of ^^ baptized unto/^ it should read, "im- 
mersed into^^ — that w^ould be a literal and exact ren- 
dering. It is objected that this passage does not 
prove immersion, but sprinkling or pouring. If so, 
then the text will read, they " were all sprinkled (eis) 
into Moses,^^ or ^^ poured into Moses." This will 
not improve the rendering any great deal. By ref- 
erence to the event as described in Exodus xiv, we 
will learn that the Israelites having come to the Red 
Sea " went into the midst of the Red Sea upon drt/ 
ground'^' — that the waters separated, opening a pas-^ 
sage for them, rising up on either side as w^alls — that 

* Hinton. t Pengilly, 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 195 

the cloud which had hitherto guided them, but which 
had stood between the two armies, now moved, and 
covered the Israelites, concealing them eiFectually, 
As far as we can learn, it does not appear that water 
^^ actually touched the Israelites in any sense what- 
ever." The whole, then, of this passage, is a meta- 
phor — a figure. Whilst, as Carson shows, there was 
a real immersion^ yet it was no^ a literal immersion 
in water, as Christian baptism is. " It is, there- 
fore,'^ he says, '' figiiroiively called by the name of 
the Christian ordinance, because of external simi- 
larity, and because of serving the like purpose, as 
well as figuring the same event. The going dovm of 
the Israelites into the sea, their being covered by the 
cloud, and their issuing out on the other side, re- 
sembled the baptism of believers, served a like pur- 
pose as attesting their faith in Moses as a temporal 
saviour y and figured the burial and resurrection of 
Christ and Christians, as well as Christian baptism/^ 
When a believer goes down into the baptismal waters, 
he thereby expresses to the world his faith in Christ 
as his Saviour ; when the fleeing Israelites entered 
the sea they expressed their faith in Moses, their 
temporal guide and saviour; hence, figuratively, 
they were immersed into faith in Moses. Now, with 
this exposition of the text agrees the comments of 
many very learned writers who were utterly opposed 
to the Baptists. 

MacKnight, (a Presbyterian.) ^^ Because the 



196 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

Israelites^ by being hid from the Egyptians under 
the cloudy and hj ijassing through the Red Sea^ were 
made to declare their Moelief in the Lord and his ser- 
vant Moses/ (Ex. xiv : 31^) the apostle very ^properly 
represents them as baptized unto Moses in the cloud 
and in the sea/' 

Wetsius. ^^How were the Israelites baptized in 
the cloud and in the sea, seeing they were 7ieither 
immersed in the sea, nor luetted hy the cloudf It is 
to be considered that the apostle here uses the term 
' baptism^ in a figurative sense, yet there is some 
agreement to the external sign. The sea is water, 
and a cloud differs but little from water. The cloud 
hung over their heads, and the sea surrounded them 
on each side ; and so the water in regard to them 
that are baptized.^^ This is the opinion of a man of 
the rarest learning and judgment. 

Whitby. ^^ They were covered with the sea on 
both sides, Ex. xiv : 22 ; so that both the cloud 
and the sea had some resemblance to our being 
covered with water in baptisDi. Their going into 
the sea resembled the ancient rite of going into the 
water ; and their coming out of it, their rising up 
out of the water.'^ This is by the learned Episcopal 
commentator. 

Gatakeh. '^ As in the Christian rite the candi- 
dates are covered with water, and, as it were^ are 
buried therein ; and again, when they come out^ rise 
as it were out of the grave ^ so it might seem as if the 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 19T 

Israelites^ when they went through the water of the 
sea, which was higher than their heads, were covered 
with it and as buried therein ; and again, as if they 
emerged and arose when they ascended on the oppo- 
site side/^ 

Prof. Stuart. "As the language must evi- 
dently he figurative in some degree, and not liter al^ I 
do not see how, on the whole, we can make less of it, 
than to suppose that it has a tacit reference to the 
idea of surrounding in some way or other /^ " The 
suggestion has sometimes been made, that the Israel- 
ites were sprinkled by the cloud and by the sea, and 
this was the baptism which Paul meant to designate. 
But the cloud on this occasion was not a cloud of 
rain ; nor do we find any intimation that the waters 
of the Red Sea sprinkled the children of Israel at 
this time." He contends, it is proper to add, that 
the Israelites were not immersed, although he admits 
that the passage is " a kind of figurative mode of ex- 
pression, derived from the idea that baptizing is sur- 
rounding WITH A FLUID. '^ Now, Prof. Stuart, here 
you allow your prejudices to warp your judgment : 
"baptizing a surrounding with a fluid,'' and yet no 
immersion ! Fie ! upon you, wise and good man ! 
1{ immersion was not thus ^^figuratively" represented, 
what was it. Professor ? Was it pouring or sprink- 
ling? Does pouring or sprinkling represent ^'a 
surrounding with a fluid ? Nay, verily ! It was 
immersion^ for what other mode represents baptism 



198 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

"as a surrounding with a fluid ?'^ But I ought not 
to insist that the apostle referred to the ancient rite 
of immersion, for Dr. Hodges sagely contends that 
to "attempt to tvjist it into immersion'^ is a "strange 
perversion of a plain case/' He says the Israelites 
"were spriJihled by a mist from the cloud and sea, 
and therefore baptized by aspersion, is easily under- 
stood/^ Well, I will rest the case with the common 
sense of the reader. If he should think, after can- 
didly examining the passage in Exodus, that sprink- 
ling or pouring better represents the baptism that 
Paul referred to, I suppose we must submit. I beg 
him, however, to re-read the opinions of those great 
scholars just quoted, and to weigh them against the 
utterances of the writer now under consideration. 
Stuart says the Israelites were not sprinkled by the 
cloud, as it " was not a cloud of rain^^ that stood over 
them. He says, " we do not find any intimation 
that the waters of the Red Sea sprinlded them.'^ Dr. 
Hodges, however, says, they '' were sprinkled by a 
mist,^^ and this mist came from " the cloud,^^ (which, 
mark you, was " not a cloud of rain,^^ according to 
the learned Stuart,) and from "the sea, '^ although 
we have no such intimation. Dr. Hodges refers to 
Psalm Ixxvii, where it is said that "clouds poured 
out water." This furnishes the author with a new 
idea. Just before he says, it is " easily understood^^ 
that the Israelites " were sprinkled by a mist from 
the cloud and the sea f but noW; after reading this 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 199 

passage, he says, ^Hhe rain which fell from the clouds 
before they reached the shore '"' "' "^ *''' was 
the baptism which the Israelites received. Being 
sprinkled by a mist, and having rain poured upon 
you, according to Dr. H. would seem to amount to 
the same thing. Now, reader, cannot Doctors of 
Divinity write very curious things? "The rain 
which fell from the clouds^' baptizing them ! That 
will not do. The apostle does not say that the 
Israelites were baptized b^/ the cloud, but into {eis) 
the cloud ; nor were they sprinlded, if the clouds 
really poured out rain upon them ; nor did they pass 
over on " dry ground through the midst of the sea.^^ 
After a pouring rain we generally have ground that 
may be said to be ivet^ not dry. The Psalmist speaks 
of a tempest, but it was not sent upon the Israelites, 
but upon their enemies, in order that dismay and 
confusion might disturb them. It was a terrible 
tempest, composed of rain, and thunder, and light- 
ning, and an earthquake, and an awful wind. So 
much for this passage and the efforts "to twist^' it to 
do service for sprinklers or pourers. Calvin, in his 
Institutes, seems to regard the apostle as referring in 
the passage under review to the moral effects rather 
than to the physical act of baptism. The Israelites 
were divided from the Egyptians by the cloud and 
the sea, so baptism separates the church of Christ 
from the world, and " designates it as God^s spiritual 
Israel.'^ 



200 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

In First Peter lii : 20-21, we have this passage : 
" The long-suffering of God waited in the days of 
Xoah^ while the ark was a preparing^ wherein few, 
that is, eight souls, were saved by water. The like 
figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us 
(not by the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but 
the answer of a good conscience towards God,) by 
the resurrection of Jesus Christ/^ Here, again, we 
have a metaphorical allusion. Is there any figure of 
a burial or resurrection in pouring and sprinkling ? 
Jfoah and his family ^^ were saved by water." Bap- 
tism in water now saves the believer — 7iot by cere- 
monial cleansing, for this can never remove sin, nor 
give a " good conscience,'^ but it represents or ex- 
hibits Christ through and by whom salvation comes. 
There is a striking resemblance between immersion 
as practiced by Christians and the salvation of ISToah 
by water. In the immersion of the believer we have 
a burial and resurrection represented. In the burial 
of the ark in the waves of the sea whilst Xoah was 
in it, and his emerging from it after the flood had 
ceased, we have also represented, in a lively way, a 
burial and resurrection. Immersion does not wash 
away sin, but it represents emblematically the puri- 
fication of the soul. I append the testimonv of two 
renowned Presbyterian scholars. 

OwEX. ^^ I deny not but that there is a great an- 
alogy between the salvation by the ark, and that by 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 201 

baptism^ inasmuch as the one did represent and the 
other dotli exliihit Christ himself." 

MacKxight. '' This anstver of a goo d co nscience 
being made to God^ is an inward answer, and means 
the baptized person's sincere persuasion of the things 
which by submitting to baptism^ he professes to be- 
lieve : namely, that Jesus arose from the dead, and 
that at the last day He will raise all from the dead to 
eternal life, who sincerely obey Him.'^ 

I do not think it necessary to detain the reader 
with an elaborate examination of the well known 
possages which refer to baptism as a burial, as re- 
corded in Eomans vi : 2-4, and in Col. ii : 12. I 
refer the reader to the opinions of many learned 
Pedobaptist writers which I have collated in Chap. 
II. He will see from these testimonies in what light 
these passages have been held by the foremost scholars 
of the world. Prof. Stuart admits that ^^ many of 
the fathers," and ^^ the great body of modern critics" 
agree in giving to these passages the same interpre- 
tation which is placed uj^on them by Baptists. It 
seems to me, therefore, a hastily formed opinion on 
the part of Dr. Hodges which leads him to say that 
^^ these passages, on which so much reliance is placed 
for immersion, really prove nothing, so far as the 
mode of baptism is concerned. All that can be with 
certainty inferred from them is, that there ma^ be an 
allusion to the mode, but that is all." I ask Dr. H. 
if that ^^ allusion'^ is to pouring or sprinkling? Will 



202 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

he say yes ? '^ Therefore, ^e are buPwIED ^vith him 
IN BAPTISM^ into death — that like as Christ was 
raised up from the dead," &c. " Bueied with him 
in baptism wheeeix (that is, in baptism,)} also ye 
are eisex with him," &c. Xow, can there possibly 
be any '' allusion/*' the most remote, to pouring or 
sprinkling in such language as this ? Is there not 
an evident, unmistakable reference to immersion ? 
Reader, lay aside your prejudice, and answer can- 
didly. I adopt the comment of Haldane in his 
celebrated work on Romans.'"' '* The death of Christ 
was the means by which sin was destroyed, and his 
burial the proof of the reality of his death. Chris- 
tians are, therefore, represented as buried with him, 
by baptism, into his death, in token that they really 
died with him ; and if buried with him, it is not 
that they shall remain in the grave, but as Christ 
arose from the dead, thev should also rise. Their 
baptism, then, is the figure of their complete deliver- 
ance from the guilt of sin, signifying that God places 
to their account the death of Christ as theu- own 
death. It is also a sign of their purification and 
resurrection for the ser\4ce of God."' Let the reader 
carefully peruse the following : 

De. TTall, the author of the famous work on 



*Iii all probability " Haldane on Eomans" is tbe production of no less 
a divine than Dr. Alexander Carson. There is a distinguished Presby- 
terian minister now living in the Sou*h, who could, probably, establish 
satisfactorily this fact. Any one desiring to investigate farther, would 
ao weU to address Kev. T. E. Skinner, D. D., Raleigh, N. C 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 203 

'^ Infant Baptism." This work was deemed so able 
and satisfactory^ that he received the thanks of the 
whole clergy of the Established Church in convoca- 
tion. Anything that he may say will be at least as 
authoritative with Episcopalians, as the enunciations 
of any recent writer. Well, what does the celebrated 
" Vicar of Shorehamj in Kent," have to say about 
these passages ? He says, we could not know from 
accounts of baptism as given in John iii : 23, Mark 
i : 5, Acts viii : 38, " whether the whole body of the 
baptized was put under loater^ head and all, were it 
not for two later proofs^ which seem to me to put it 
OUT OF QUESTION : one^ that St. Paul does tivicey in 
an allusive loay of speaking, call baptism a burial ; 
the other J the custom of Christians, in the near sue- 
ceeding times, which, being more largely and particu- 
larly delivered in books, is known to have been 
generally or ordinarily, A total immersion. P. 
131. Dr. Hodges admits there maybe an "allu- 
sion^^ to the mode. Dr. Wall declares that this allu- 
sion is to baptism as a burial, and settles the ques- 
tion — ^' puts it out of question'^ — that the whole body^ 
head and all, were put under water in baptism. 

Archbishop Tillotson, (Episcopalian.) '' An- 
ciently, those who were baptized, were immersed and 
BURIED in the water, to represent their death to sin, 
and then did rise up out of the water, to signify 
their entrance upon a new life. And to these cus- 
toms the apostle alludes Rom. vi : 2-6/' Well, I 



204 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

think this learned ecclesiastic will offset fairly the 
ipse dixit of Dr. Hodges. He is rather more famous 
even among his own ^^folk'^ for ability and learning. 

Archbishop Secker^ (Episcopalian.) ^^ Bury- 
ing, as it were, the person baptized, in the water, 
and raising him out again, without questio:n', was 
anciently the more usual method; on account of 
which, St. Paul speaks of baptism as representing both 
the death ^ burial, and resurrection of Christ, and what 
is grounded on them — our being dead and buried to 
sin, and our rising again to walk in newness of life." 

But it would be an easy matter to lay before the 
reader many pages of similar testimony. What is 
given, will be sufficient. Without further comment, 
I leave the subject with the attentive and candid 
reader. 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 205 



NUMBER XXIII. 

The Baptism of the Three Thousand at Pentecost— Dr. Robinson's testi- 
mony as to the Sufficiency of water for the Performance of the Rite- 
Objections Considered, &c. 

The last point in the discussion which I propose 
presenting in this series, is the baptism of the three 
thousand on the day of Pentecost. 

See Acts ii : 37, 38, 41. The objections urged 
ordinarily against their immersion, are so character- 
istic of Pedobaptist prejudice, and exhibit such a 
want of candor and willingness to believe what the 
Word of God declares, that they merit unceremonious 
exposure. I think the fair-minded reader will con- 
clude, before he gets through, that there is manifested 
on the part of Pedobaptist writers either great un- 
fairness or ignorance. 

The question is, " Were the three thousand sprink- 
led or immersed ? The meaning of haptizo settles 
the question forever : They were certainly immersed. 
See the discussion of haptizo in the earlier number^. 
But to this, certain writers object. They urge their 
objections upon two grounds. 

1. That there was not enough water in Jerusalem 
to immerse the multitude. 



206 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

2. That it was physically impossible for the rite to 
be performed in that way. Let us examine these 
points. 

1. As to the ivater. We learn from Dr. Robin- 
S'ON^S '^Biblical Researches in Palestine/^ (a valua- 
ble Presbyterian work^) that there was really water 
enough in and about Jerusalem, to have immersed 
tens of thousands. He says : 

" The main dependence of Jerusalem for water, at 
the present day, is on its cisterns, and this has proba- 
bly ,< alivays been the case/^ He farther tells us of 
" immense cisterns^ now and anciently existing within 
the area of the temple, supplied partly from rain 
water, and partly by the aqueduct. These, of them- 
selves, in case of siege, would furnish a tolerable 
supply. But, in addition to these, almost every pri- 
vate house in Jerusalem, of any size, is understood to 
have at least one or more cisterns excavated in the 
soft limestone rock on which the city is built. The 
house of Mr. Laneau, in which we resided, had no 
less than four cisterns ; and as these are but a speci- 
men of the manner in which all the better class of 
houses are supplied, I subjoin here the dimensions : 
1st. Length, 15 feet; breadth, 8 feet; depth, 12 feet. 
2nd. Length, 8 feet; breadth, 4 feet; depth, 15 feet. 
3rd. Length, 10 feet; breadth, 10 feet; depth, 15 
feet. 4th. Length, 80 feet; breadth, 30 feet; depth, 
20 feet. This last is enormously large, and the 
numbers given are the least estimate.^^ Speaking of 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 207 

the reservoirs, he says : '' These reservoirs we have 
learned to consider' as one of the least doubtful ves- 
tiges of antiquity in Palestine." ^' With such reser- 
voirs Jerusalem was abundantly supplied^ to say 
nothing of the immense Pools of Solomon, beyond 
Bethlehem, which, no doubt, were constructed for 
the benefit of the Holy City." " Lying outside of 
the walls, on the west side of the city,'^ ^^are tAVO 
very large reservoirs." These he supposes to have 
been the Upper and Lower Pools of Isaiah. Con- 
cerning the Upper Pool, he says : Its " length" was 
^^316 English feet; breadth at the west end 20Q 
feet; at the east end 218 feet; depth at each end 18 
feet." 

He gives the following as the dimensions of thQ 
Lower Pool : - Length, along the middle, 592 Eng- 
lish feet ; breadth, at the north end, 245 feet ; at 
the south end, 270 feet; depth, at the north end, 
including about 9 feet of rubbish, 35 feet ; at south 
end, including about 3 feet of rubbish, 42 feet." 
Besides these, he mentions, as being ^Svithout the 
walls," the Pool of Siloam, and two other pools or 
^' cistern-like" tanks. ^^ Within the walls of the city 
are three reservoirs, two of which are of large size." 
Of one of these, the Pool of Hezekiah, he gives these 
dimensions: ^'Its breadth, at the north end, is 144 
feet; its length, on the east side, about 240 feet, 
though the adjacent houses here prevented any very 
f:^£^ct ^leasuremtent, The depth is not greatn^^ ^ 



208 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

very good place^ then, for immersing. Of another, 
the Pool of Bethesda, he says : " It measures 360 
English feet in length, 130 feet in breadth, and 75 
feet in depth, to the bottom, besides the rubbish 
which has been accumulating in it for ages/^ In 
addition to these, he mentions an aqueduct and nu- 
merous fountains. See Robinson, pp. 479-518. 
The celebrated Chateaubriand of France, gives us 
ample testimony as to the abundant supply of water 
in Jerusalem. But not only do travellers testify as 
to the great amount of water to be found in and 
around the " City of the Great King,'^ but the Scrip- 
tures themselves, give us evidence to the same pur- 
port, which together establishes the fact that there 
probably never was a city in the world which was 
supplied with a greater amount of water in propor- 
tion to its actual size. We learn II Kings that there 
was an upper pool — that Hezekiah made a pool and a 
conduit^ and brought water into the city. We learn 
from II Chron. that there was ^^much water^^ in Jeru- 
salem. We learn from Nehemiah that the '' upper 
water of Gihon^^ was " brought straight down to the 
west side of the city of David.^^ We are told also 
about the " gate of the fountawJ^ and the ^^ King^s 
Pooiy We read also about ^'the Pool oi Siloah,^^ 
and ^^ the pool that was made.^^ In Isaiah we read 
of the ^^ waters of the Lower Pool.'^ 

In John we read of a jpooZ " by the sheep market." 
We read also of the " Pool of Siloam.'^ 



WHAT IS BAPTISM ? 209 

_ I could add other testimony if space permitted. 
The testimony of Josephus is valuable. Dr. Samp- 
son^ Dr. Barclay, and others have given us valuable 
facts as to other places for immersion at Jerusalem. 
I take it for granted, that after what has been given, 
no intelligent reader will question the supply of 
water. 

2. As to the physical impossibility. Certain 
writers have gone into an arithmetical calculation to 
show this. Some of their remarks are very ludi- 
crous and absurd. One of them speaks of immer- 
sion as being ^' one of the most severe and exhaust- 
ing efforts to human strength that can well be under- 
taken.'' 

So says Dr. Miller. They are in bad practice. 
They have departed so far from apostolic usage and 
immerse so little, that to their unpracticed hands it 
seems a work for Hercules. Old Baptist ministers 
only laugh at such dismay. The Holy Spirit asserts 
that they were immersed. With Bible believers that 
ought to be sufficient. Prof. Curtis has shown that 
tiventy -seven persons were immersed by one adminis- 
trator in eight minuteSj and that too without hurry-^ 
ing through in an unseemly manner. The Rev. Dr. 
Skinner, of Raleigh, immersed forty-six persons in 
eleven minutes, two gentlemen timing the adminis- 
tration of the rite. Rev. Jas. Purifoy, of Wake 
Forest, has had a similar experience. Such examples 
are to be found, doubtless, wherever immersion is 



210 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

practiced. Besides, history tells lis of the baptism of* 
even a larger number of persons in one day than is 
claimed for Pentecost. In the 7th century, ten 
thousand were baptized in tice river Swale by Austin, 
the monk, who was sent to England by Pope 
Gregory the Great. Chrysostom tells us that he 
and his presbyters immersed amid the interruptions 
from infuriated soldiers, three thousand on the 16th 
April, A. D. 404. Remigius, Bishop of Rheims, 
immersed tJtree thousand, in one day, A. D. 496. 
He was, of course, assisted by others of his clei'gy. 

If at the Pentecost only the twelve apostles (Mat- 
thias had been chosen in place of Judas) were the 
administrators, the baptism could easily have been 
completed in one day. Peter was preaching at the 
third hour, (9 o'clock A. M.,) and doubtless he was 
through by 1 1 o'clock. If each of the tvrelve bap- 
tized even sixty an hour, they would have completed 
the task in little over five hours. This, by many 
Baptist ministers, would be considered easy work. 
The distinguished Dr. Richard Fuller, of Baltimore, 
tells us in his work on baptism, that he has more 
than once immersed one and t^vo hundred before 
morning service on the Lord's day. Could not, 
then, the twelve immerse three thousand (250 each) 
from 11 o'clock A. M., until 6 o'clock P. M. ? 

But suppose the seventy other ordained ministers 
(see Luke x : 1) were present, as probably they were, 
and aided in the baptisms, the exercises need not 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 2ll 

have lasted more than one hour ; they might have 
been concluded in forty minutes. So there was ample 
time for immersion. 

But it is not stated that three thousand were hap-- 
tized on the day of Pentecost. No number is given. 
"Then they that received His word were baptized. 
And the same day there were added unto them about 
three thousand souls.^' There is nothing said about 
being baptized^ but only " w^ere added. '^ 

Bloomfielb says, " We need not suppose all (of 
the 3,000) were baptized.'' 

Some of them may have been John's disciples, and 
merely came forward to unite themselves wdth the 
recently converted. But I am Y>dlling to admit that 
the three thousand were all baptized, and yet there 
is no sort of difficulty in finding either sufficient 
water for immersional purposes, or a siiffixient number 
of administrators. 



212 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 



NUMBER XXIV. 

Objections against Immersion Considered. 

Having thiis^ in the preceding numbers^ placed 
before the reader, as well as I could under the cir- 
cumstances, some of the arguments and facts ^Yhich 
induced my change, I must detain him for a few 
numbers additional, whilst I offer him some reflec- 
tions which an investigation of the subject of bap- 
tism has suggested. Before doing so, however, I 
remark again that it was an examination of the mode 
of baptism which first excited serious doubts in my 
mind, and which led me to investigate, as thoroughly 
as I could, the iJi^oper subjects of baptism. The line 
of investigation which I pursued, and the arguments 
I found so influential in my own case with regard to 
the latter, I hope yet to publish in some form.-'" It 
is proper to remark, that after my investigations had 
been extended through the topics already indicated, 
I also very seriously considered the subject of Church 
Government. I found here less difficulty than else- 
where. I had not for a long time been satisfied with 
any Episcopal form of polity. Lord King^s " Primi- 

* If this little volume should he found useful, it will be followed by 
another volume on ** Who May be Baptized," 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 213 

tiye Church/^ and PowelFs incomparable work on 
'^Apostolical Succession/' had long since fully satis- 
fied me that Episcopacy was a corruption and inno- 
vation ; but I had not worked out any satisfactory 
views with regard to the form of government in 
early times — whether it was Presbyterian or Inde- 
pendent. I feel fully assured that the same patient 
industry bestowed upon the investigation of this sub- 
ject that I have given^ and a candid appeal being 
made to the Scriptures and Ecclesiastical History, 
will result in the complete conviction that the form 
of government am.ong primitive churches was inde- 
pendent — each church being absolutely independent 
of all others. See Mosheim and Neander on first 
century. In regard to the Communion question, I 
had no difficulty. As soon as I embraced with all 
my heart the Biblical doctrine of believer s baj^tism, 
and satisfied my mind that baptism precedes commu- 
nion, I had no struggle in perceiving that there was 
a logical necessity/ for what is ordinarily termed 
'^ Close Communion.^^ If I should be spared to 
carry out my purposes, a series of articles may yet 
appear upon the subjects of Church Government and 
Close Communion, or my reflections will be pub- 
lished in some other form. 

I will now briefly notice a few objections which 
are urged by sprinklers against immersion. 

1. It is objected that immersion '^restricts the 
application of an ordinance" which God intended for 



214 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

all climates, and all ages, and all conditions, and all 
circumstances. 

I answer, that Christ himself was immersed, and 
commanded His disciples to be immersed. He did 
this knowing all things. I do not, therefore, ad- 
mire that piety which unhesitatingly cavils at His 
appointments. Bat to be more particular. 

(1.) I assert that immersions take place often in 
the coldest climates ; that in Xorthern Europe it is 
quite common to immerse, and that in Russia, an 
exceedingly frigid country, immersion is the only 
mode practiced. 

The people there have no difficulty in obeying the 
Saviour's command. See Stanley. It is also a well 
known fact that immersion is practiced in some of 
the liot countries — in Africa, Asia, and America — 
even right under the tropics. So much for the re- 
striction as to climate. 

2. As to ages, I have only to remark in this place, 
that our Lord appointed immersion for believers — 
and for no others. Whenever they are old enough 
to exercise faith in Christ, and make a profession of 
faith in Him, then there is no restriction — they are 
fit subjects for baptism. 

3. As to conditions and circumstances, I remark 
again, our Saviour has appointed immersion. When- 
ever, therefore, providentially, a person is prevented 
from receiving the ordinance by any cause, no one 
is to be censured. A sincerely pious soul will sub- 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 215 

mit to God's will in the matter unmurmuringly. 
'•^ God will accept ^ a willing mind/ in the absence of 
physical ability^ or of opportunity, to observe the 
ordinance." God commands you to ^^search the 
Scriptures/^ If you are blind, or so afflicted in your 
visual organs as not to be able to comply, as a merci- 
ful God, he excuses you. God did not demand that 
the believing thief on the cross should be baptized. 
God does not demand an impossible service. If a 
believer in Jesus is so circumstanced that it is impos- 
sible for him to be immersed (like the thief) he is 
excused by Him who reads the heart aright. But 
of one thing be ye fully assured, God will not accept 
in lieu of His own ordinance, a mutilated^ changed^ 
or perverted rite. If any one chooses to invest the 
rite of baptism with a superstitious notion of mar- 
vellous virtue, and to believe that it is necessary for 
his salvation, and then proceeds to substitute for the 
institution of Christ an invention of his own, upon 
him rests the condemnation and the guilt. God has 
appointed immersion as baptism, and He has done 
this with every circurastance and exigency before Mm, 
Man has no right either to object or tamper with 
Su institutions — it is impious. Dr. Mell well says, 
^' the exaggerated notions of the dangers attendant 
upon immersion, spring entirely from a religions 
hydrophohia. Our brethren would see, if they knew 
more of themselves, that they shudder not so much 



216 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

at the physical^ as at the religious consequences of 
going into the water/^ 

There is another objection I am almost tempted 
to disregard entirely. It savors of a bloated car- 
nality and an unseemly pride so strongly, that it 
would, perhaps, be better to pass it over in silence, 
if it were not that we meet with it in all the books ; 
we hear it in all the pulpit harangues ; we listen to 
it in the home circle. And what is this objection, so 
pregnant w^ith force as to be paraded on all occa- 
sions? It is, that immersion is indecent, "Well 
may the philosphic Carson ask : " Shall the man of 
God blow^ the trumpet of Satan in the camp of Israel? 
If immersion is an ordinance of Christy it is a fearful 
thing to oppose it by such an engine. It is not the 
first time, hoAvever, that Jesus has been rebuked as a 
sinner. In the estimation of the Pharisees, He broke 
the Sabbath ; He was charged as a wine-bibber and a 
glutton ; and it is not strange that the wisdom of 
this world should find indelicacy in His ordinances.^' 
Dr. Carson, in another place, says : ^^ If it suits the 
wisdom of Christ's appointments that one person 
should be immersed by another, even were it a real 
humiliation, it is to Christ we stoop. That God\s 
institutions cannot foster any of the corruptions of 
our nature, is self-evident ; but that they should con- 
sult our sentiments of dignity and delicacy, is a thing 
that no one acquainted with the Scriptures ought to 
assert." '' Did (i\\Q objector) never hear of such a 



I 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 217 

thing as circumcision ? Has he forgotten the trans- 
action in Abraham^s house on the institution of that 
ordinance ? Was there more dignity in that opera- 
tion, with respect to the father of the faithful, and 
the males of his house, than there is in immersion in 
water ? What shall we say of the transaction at the 
Hill of Foreskins ? What shall we say of many 
parts of the law of Moses ? What shall we say of 
many parts of both the Old Testament and the 
New?" And who can charge indecency now, with 
these things before him? Does this objection origi- 
nate in anything said or suggested by the Holy 
Spirit ? Is not such an appeal unworthy of a dis- 
ciple of Jesus — is it not an appeal to our pride, to 
our ideas of conventional decorum — to our carnal 
views and appetites ? In urging such an objection, 
does he not endeavor to enlist the corruptions of the 
Christian's heart against the ordinance which Christ 
himself has instituted ? Is it not really grossly 
blasphemous ? Does it not charge Christ with inde- 
cency — a charge which even Satan might hesitate to 
bring ? And yet writers and speakers will, to serve 
an end, employ such a weapon, and that, too, when 
they pretend to recognize immersion as a valid mode. 
Now, what makes a mode valid ? Is it not because 
Christ has appointed it? Shame, then, that so noble 
a character as Richard Watson should insult his 
Saviour by raising the objection oiindecency. It is, 
perhaps, not a matter of surprise that some individ- 



218 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

uals should indulge in such a coarse suggestion : but 
that Watson should lend the influence of his exalted 
intellectual and moral character to such an unworthy 
end, is to be at once regretted and censured. He 
says that, " it is satisfactory to discover that all the 
attempts made to impose upon Christians a practice 
repulsive to the feelings, dangerous to the health, and 
offensive to delicacy, is destitute of all Scriptural 
authority, and really primitive practice/^ 

jSTow a brief remark or two by way of comment : 

1. The reader is fortunately able to judge for him- 
self after the prodigious mass of evidence already 
given, whether immersion is '' destitute of all Scrip- 
tural authority and of really primitive practice/^ 
Watson cannot, nor does not offer in his '^Insti- 
tutes,'^ one-fifth as much ^^ Scriptural authority^' for 
any practice of his Church, as I have collated in 
these pages in advocacy of the practice of immersion. 
I assert this after having read his w^ork three times. 
As to his bold and silly assertion that immersion is 
not '^ of really primitive practice,^^ I refer the reader 
to the testimony before given, from the works of 
scores of eminent Pedobaptists. They contradict 
him flatly. 

2. The charge of indecency comes with a bad 
grace from one who belongs to a church organization 
which encourages and endorses this practice. Any 
Methodist minister in the N. C. Conference who 
should refuse to immerse a subject would, doubtless. 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 219 

be arraigned for trial ; for he would '' be mending 
the rules, not keeping them/^ It is a rule of that 
Church to immerse when it is preferred. 

3. As to immersion being '^ dangerous to the 
health/^ there is probably no authenticated instance 
of a person being made sick from it. Very delicate 
persons need not be immersed. Baptism of itself 
will not save the soul. The thief was never bap- 
tized. The charges of its being "- repulsive to the 
feelings/^ and "offensive to delicacy/' have been dis- 
posed of by one, who, in intellectual supremacy, was 
more than Watson's peer, in the extract from the 
learned and able Carson. 



220 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 



NUMBER XXV. 

Further Objections Considered— The Circumstances of a Rite not Mate- 
rial — Examples drawn from Scripture to prove the Necessity of Literal 
Obedience— Pedobaptists denounce Immersion— Examples Given. 

I continue my notice of objections urged against 
immersion. I remark : 

3. Another objection finds vent in some such lan- 
guage as this : ^^ If you lay so much stress upon bap- 
tism, why do you not administer it as you claim it 
was administered in apostolic times, observing all 
the minutiae of the rite ? Why do you not, for in- 
stance, include all the minutiae embraced in the man- 
ner, (as Dr. Hodges asks,) ^^ which will often times 
extend to time, order, and circumstances?'^ To il- 
lustrate his point he continues, ^^ This would confine 
the sacrament of the Lord's Supper to night as the 
time for it ; to unleavened bread^ received in a reclin- 
ing posture, just after a meal, in an upper room, and 
710 females present. Dispense with any one of these 
particulars, and you may with all. And when you 
dispense with all, where is the modef^ 

In reply, I unhestatingly and plainly assert that 
the mere circumstances connected with the admin- 
istration of the rite of baptism, nor the mere ciR- 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 221 

CUMSTANCES Connected with the administration of the 
Lord's Supper^ are not in any sense material, for our 
Saviour has not commanded their observance. But, 
(1.) What has He commanded in reference to the 
Supper? Let us turn to the Scripture record. Luke 
states that when our Saviour instituted the sacrament 
of the Supper, "He took bread and brake it, and 
gave it to His disciples, saying, This is my body, 
which is given for you : this do in remembrance 
OF ME.'^ Paul, in I Corinthians, in alluding to this 
very important event, says : " The Lord Jesus, the 
same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, 
and when He had given thanks. He brake it, and 
said. Take, eat, *'*^* -'" '*' this do in rememhrance 
of me. After the same manner also. He took the 
cup, when He had supped, saying, This cup is the 
New Testament in my blood : this do ye, as oft as 
ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me.'' Now, 
in all this, is there any command which would re- 
quire us to observe the mere circumstances f If our 
blessed Lord had commanded that the Supper should 
be administered at night, in a reclining posture, in 
an upper room, &c., then it would be absolutely ne- 
cessary for us to minutely observe them ; it would be 
just as necessary to observe these things as it is to 
drink the wine or eat the bread. But no one will 
insist that anything else is commanded but to eat the 
bread and drink the cup. To fulfill this command 
there must be a literal observance. It will not do 



S22 What is baptism? 

that we snleil the bread or the wine; it will not do that 
we substitute milk or cider for the wine, or fish for 
bread. To observe the sacrament, we must eat the 
bread and drink the wine. 

(2.) Now, what has Christ commanded with refer- 
ence to baptism f I insist he has not appointed that 
the mere circumstances connected with baptism are 
to be observed. Pie has not commanded us to be 
baptized in Jordan, in the night, in the month of 
May, clad in vestments of white, or even nude. The 
circumstances are of no sort of importance. What, 
then, is 'positively necessary to constitute valid bap- 
tism ? The command given by Jesus Christ is that 
the believer shall be iramersed. This must be liter- 
all]/ observed. There must be water enough to sub'- 
merge completely the body. Unless this is done 
there is no baptism^ for the Greek word used to de- 
signate the ordinance means that and nothing else, 
as we learn from the almost univocal testimony of the 
learned of all ages and all religious denominations. 
Whether the subject is immersed in a pool or in run- 
ning water, whether with singing or praying, whether 
by night or day, whether in the morning or evening, 
whether with face downwards or upwards, whether 
with face to the east or to the west ; whether the ad- 
ministrator enters the water or stands upon the bank 
to perform the rite : these are not essential to the or- 
dinance. But to plunge the entire body beneath the 
baptismal waters is absolutely necessary to constitute 



WHAf m BAPTISM? 228 

Christian baptism. I am indebted to Dr. Mell for 
the general tenor and some of the thoughts of the 
above. 

^' Let us suppose Joseph, when he was commanded 
to take Mary and the young child and flee into Egypt, 
to have interpreted the command on the same prin- 
ciple that is proposed to be adopted by those who 
sprinkle and pour for baptism. He vv^ould have said, 
^The spirit of the command only requires me to flee 
from the reach of Herod ; the place is a mere circum- 
stance ; and though the command literally requires 
me to go into Egypt, yet the command will be sub- 
stantially obeyed though I go into Arabia.^ — ( Wm 
Judd.) So with baptism. They argue, although 
haptizo primarily and literally means to immerse, yet 
the command to immerse will be substantially obeyed 
though w^e substitute the sprinkling of a few drops 
of water. If this principle of interpretation were to 
be adopted and applied generally to God's Book, it 
would make strange, sad work with it. Jonah was 
right; then, when he fled to Tarshish, though God 
commanded him to go to Ninevah. Paul would have 
been justified if he had confined his labors to the 
Jews, when he was specially commissioned to preach 
to the Gentiles. Noah would have substantially 
obeyed God, if he had built the ark four times as 
small or four times as large as the dimensions given 
by Diety, and had constructed it out of white oak or 
ash instead of ^^ Gopher wood/^ as he was commanded. 



224 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

Saul, when he spared the best of the sheep and oxen 
of the Amalekites, did well, although he had been 
positively commanded by God to do otherwise. Such 
would be the result of Pedobaptist reasoning with 
reference to baptism, if applied to the commands of 
God generally. And yet Jonah was punished se- 
verely, and Saul was ^^ rejected from being king/^ 
because they disobeyed the Diviue injunction. 

We learn that so exact is God in His require- 
ments, when the Israelites partook of the passover 
proclaimed by Hezekiah, without being purified from 
their ^^ uncleanness,^^ that it became necessary for the 
King to pray to God in their behalf. It was in an- 
swer to this prayer that " God forgave tliem.^^ They 
had sinned by not observing the externals which the 
Almighty had appointed, hence the great solicitude 
of Hezekiah as manifested in his prayer in their be- 
half. It was only after they had been pardoned by 
their offended Maker, that they were permitted by 
their King to participate with their brethren in the 
remaining solemnities. What a lesson does this 
teach ! How jealous and exacting is God ! When 
God appoints external ceremonies and rites, who will 
dare set them aside, or in the least degree alter or 
change them ? No man can do this without incur- 
ring the serious displeasure of God, and turning 
God^s blessings and grace into a cause of licentious 
indulgence. What wickedness and folly ! 

4. Another objection is: ^^You magnify baptism 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 225 

into a saving ordinance. I do not think it at all 
essential to salvation. I can be saved without it.'^ 
Let u^ first hear what God says: "He that belie veth 
and is baptized shall be saved.^^ " The like figure 
wherennto baptism doth noio also save us, not the 
putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of 
a good conscience toward God by the resurrection of 
Jesus Christ/' ^'Eepent and be baptized every one 
of vou, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remis- 
sion of sins/' " Arise, and be baptized and loash 
aioay thy sins." So God spake in times past. Now, 
is it any business of yours to set to work to distin- 
guish between what you are pleased to call commands 
that are essential or not essential? It is surely very 
essential that you obey, " Baptism is essential to 
obedience^ and obedience is essential to salvation,^' 
Now, God requires you to observe certain external 
rites which He has appointed. Do you tell God 
that you will not observe them, because they are not 
essential f How do you know? Where is your 
obedience? In your action and language you assume 
what is impossible — to love God without obeying 
Him — to have a holy heart and to obey God in re- 
gard to spiritual duties ^ when you deliberately refuse 
to obey Him in regard to other duties which He has 
enjoined. ^^It v/as by external obedience^ and not 
by spirituality merely, that the integrity of our first 
parents was tested at the beginning : and the curse 
that followed the transgression teaches us an awful 



226 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

lesson on the clanger of delinquency in regard to any 
positive precept. The Jevv^ish feasts and Sabbaths, 
the sacrifices and offerings, were external institutions; 
yet they were charged in the most solemn manner to 
observe the whole with religious scrupulosity: ^ What 
things soever I command you, observe to do it : thou 
shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.' '^ (Wm. 
Judd.) 

The Bible reader will remember the case of Nadab 
and Abihu. They offered a ^'strange fire'^ before 
the Lord, and as a consequence, lost their lives. The 
punishment they received, teaches us that we cannot 
even dispense with the cireumstance of a rite when it 
is prescribed, Jehovah will be approached in the 
way He appoints. Be ye careful, dear reader, that 
ye be baptized as Christ has appointed, and that ye 
do not rest satisfied in the performance of an exter- 
nal rite which is simply a '' commandment of man.^^ 
You cannot change or mutilate — ^^add to" or ^^di- 
minish^^ — a rite appointed by God, without condem- 
nation. The solemn institutions of religion are too 
important to be heedlessly neglected or corruptly 
altered. ^^ Blessed are they that do His command- 
ments, that they may have right to the tree of life, 
and may enter in through the gates into the city/^- 
^^This is the love of God, that we keep His com- 
mandments : and His commandments are not griev- 
ous." 

Persons who are wedded to hereditary views^ ^vA 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 227 

are victims of the inexorable tyranny of custom^ en- 
deavor often to administer an opiate to the conscience 
by saying that baptism is not essential. Now in 
baptism itself there is nothing to save. There was 
nothing in Jordan to make clean Naaman the leper. 
Obedience is a test of faith : obedience is really a 
test of religious character. In baptism there is no- 
thing to save the soul. But it is a test applied to the 
subject : if he refuse to receive the rite^ it shows that 
his " heart is not right^^ — that the principle in his 
heart which prompts him to rebellion against God's 
instructions would exclude him both from the king- 
dom of grace and the kingdom of glory. Our first 
parents deliberately disobeyed God by merely eating 
of an apple. The result is ruin^ and sorrow^ and 
death, to the whole human race. Take heed, reader, 
how you endeavor to deceive yourself with the idea 
that you may neglect baptism and be safe. Before I 
bring this article to a close, there is one point I wish 
to bring to your notice. 

It is very manifest that Pedobaptists generally do 
not regard with favor, immersion, although as a 
'^ dernier resort,''' they will practice it, rather than 
the person receiving the rite should join the Baptists. 
Hear what Dr. Summers says, who stands high 
among the Methodists as a man of ability and learn- 
ing, was the editor of their Keview^, and is " Book 
Editor" besides. He has written a work on bap- 
tism. In it he says : '' We may^ indeed^ in special 



228 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

cases^ and in condescension to vjeak consciences^ ad- 
minister the ordinance by plunging, thougti in such 
cases, some think affusion (sprinkling) ought not to 
be omitted, else there might be need of Hezekiah's 
prayer : ' The good Lord po^rdoUy ^^ &c. What an 
insult is this to the person who receives immersion 
at the hands of such an administrator. '' Weak con- 
sciences" — '' sprinkling ought not to be omitted^^ — 
^' good Lord j^c^rdon/^ &c. Who is then so bereft of 
all self-respect as to allow a person vrho thus flings 
his contemptuous slang at those who believe that 
God has appointed immersion as Christian baptism, 
to perform the rite for him ? This pretentious Bib- 
lical critic, who had his ignorance of the Greek lan- 
guage so admirably exposed by Dr. Mell, farther 
says : ^' They (the Pedobaptist administrators) con- 
sider it (immersion) a MAXGLixa of the Saviour's 
ordinance, and they never witness an iramersion with- 
out a feeling of eevulsion and soeeow/' &c. But 
let us see if this is an opinion peculiar to Dr. S. 
Rev. Mr. Campbell, (Presbyterian,) of Tennessee, in 
a work on baptism, says : '' Christian baptism by 
immersion is clearly no Christian baptism at all.'^ 
Rev. Mr. Hendrick says : ^'Immersion has inverted 
and fully destroyed the Gospel in the past." Rev. 
J. C. Chapman, a Methodist, speaks of immersion 
as one '^of a group of errors fostered by tradition,'^ 
Dr. Osgood says: ^^In condescension to the con- 
sciences of those who request it," &c. Rev. Mr. 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 229 

Worcester speaks of immersion as the ^^ heigJit of im- 
piety y^ &c. Methodist Tract, No. 99, says, " if John 
immersed Christ, he tvas a transgressor of the law of 
Gody What insane blasphemy ! A recent Pres- 
byterian publication, lately noticed in the Religious 
Herald, takes ground that immersion is not baptism. 
It would be easy to accumulate quotations. Rev. G. 
W. Purifoy has done good service in his publication, 
entitled '^ Pedobaptist Immersions,^' to which I am 
indebted for most of the above quotations. I have 
only space for one other remark. Such characters 
will denounce immersion as no haptism ; and will 
rant by the hour against it, and then deliberately 
contradict all they have said, by immersing candi- 
dates, lest they seek Scriptural baptism at the hands 
of a Baptist. Nay, they will rehaptize — will im- 
merse those members upon whom water has been 
sprinkled rather than suffer them to go in peace. 
Comment is unnecessary. 

Note.— I acknowledge my indebtedness for much of the above to W, 
Judd. The current of thought is his. 
K 



2S0 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 



NUMBER XXVI. 

Who Baptists Immerse— "What Protestant Churches teach in their For- 
mularies Concerning the Nature of Baptism— C. Taylor on Pictures- 
Other Observations. 

I think it will be profitable, if I employ this num- 
ber in presenting some remarks upon two or three 
points that ought not to be omitted in a discussion of 
this kind. 

Every well informed reader knows that of all de- 
nominations of Christians in the world, the Baptists 
are farthest removed from Romanism. They do not 
^' put baptism in the place of the atonement of Christy 
and the sanctifying agency of the Holy Spirit'' They 
practice immersion because they believe fully that 
Christ has so commanded, but they never ascribe to 
that rite any saving efficacy or any mystical power of 
sanctification. Indeed, so utterly opposed are all 
true Baptists to everything that savors of priest-craft 
and Roman Catholicism ; so much do they abhor all 
manipulations and every shade of sacramentarianism ; 
so utterly free from all taint whatsoever of the doc- 
trine of ^^ inherent eflScacy in the act of duty per- 
formed," (the opus operatum of Papists,) are the Bap- 
tists^ that they never baptize any one, unless he 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 231 

gives a clear, satisfactory evidence that he is already 
REGENERATED. Others may baptize to save or help 
save the soul, but Baptists never. And any one 
who charges otherwise, is either ignorant or guilty of 
deliberate misrepresentation. I assert, that this cannot 
be said of all Protestantism. I assert, that for ages 
after Christ, when pouring or sprinkling had been 
foisted in the church, it was never used in one soli- 
tary instance^ save for the '' express purpose of se- 
curing to the subject the remission of his sins, and a 
passport to Heaven." I defy any one to furnish one 
exception. I will gladly acknowledge it. Let us see 
what is taught by the various churches : 

(1.) The Roman Catholic teaches that " by virtue 
of baptism'^ ''our souls are filled with Divine grace, 
whereby being made jiW^ and the children of God," &c. 

2. The English Episcopal Church, in the catechism^ 
teaches that baptism '' is a means whereby we re- 
ceive" '' inward and spiritual grace.'^ Previous to 
administering baptism, is said in prayer to God : 
" We call upon thee for this infant, that he, coming 
to thy holy baptism^ may receive remission of sins," 
&c. After baptism, it is said : " We yield thee hearty 
thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased 
thee to regenerate this infant, &c. At confirmation, 
it is said : " Almighty and ever-living God, who hast 
vouchsafed to regenerate these thy servants by water 
and the Holy Ghost." 

Ileader, take all these passages in their several 



232 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

connections, and then say, Tvhat do they teach ? 
Would you, as a good Protestant, be willing to have 
them incorporated into the formularies of your 
church ? 

3. In the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, p. 123, 
we are taught that the '' efficacy of baptism is not tied 
to that moment of time Y/herein it is administered/' 
but that '' grace^' is '' really exhibited and conferred^' 
at the time the subject is baptized or afterwards, by 
the Holy Spirit, provided the subject is one of the 
elect. Comment cannot be necessary. 

4. The Dutch Reformed teaches that -'Holy bap- 
tism witnesses and sealeth unto us the Vfashing away 
of our sins by Jesus Christ,^^ &c. It is distinctly 
stated in this article that the benefits of pardon, sanc- 
tification, and eternal life, are secure to all bai^tized 
infants. 

5. It always appeared to me that the formulary 
used in the Methodist Discipline in the baptism of 
infants, squinted very hard at the idea of baptismal 
regeneration. The same may possibly be said of the 
formulary for baptizing adults. At one time that 
wise and good man, John Wesley, held the doctrine 
of '' baptismal regeneration" in all of its extrava- 
gance. In his '' Treatise on Baptism" you will find 
such passages as these : " By baptism we who were 
by nature children of wrath, are made the children 
of Grod. And this regeneration^ which our church, 
(the Episcopal,) in so many places ascribes to bap- 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 233 

tlsm/' &c. '^ As a means by the water of baptism, 
we are regenerated or horn again!' So in his ser- 
mon on '• Marks of the New Birth,'^ he teaches the 
same tremendous heresy. But Mr. Wesley wrote 
these before he had become- moderately purged of the 
old Papistical leaven^ so much of which is to be found 
in the Episcopal Church. He worked himself clear 
of this soul-destructive doctrine. See his sermon on 
" The New Birth," it being sermon xlv. It aifords 
me pleasure to vindicate the mem^ory of one of the 
holiest and greatest men that has ever lived. 

Dr. Waterland, Matthew Henry^ and other distin- 
guished Pedobaptist divines, teach the sam.e doctrine. 
But you cannot find a Baptist writer of repute v,^ho 
does. Our men of learning are thoroughly evangeli- 
cal and orthodox. 

3. I wish to refer briefly to one species of evidence 
resorted to by that absurd writer, C. Taylor, and 
patronized by Dr. Hodges. The editor of Calmet 
makes a parade of some pictures v/hich are to be con- 
clusive^ and to settle the question of baptism. It is 
not to be v>^ondered at that any author who could 
write as far-fetched an argument to establish infant 
baptism^ as he does in his long-winded discussion of 
^' oikos^ and ^^oihia^'^ should put stress upon pictures, 
the work of artists who lived hundreds of years after 
Christ. The first case of sprinkling on record was 
A. D. 230. The oldest picture that Taylor gives, is 
a plate, which it is claimed, was made after the year 



284 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

A. D. 248. This crude specimen of art represents 
the baptism by pouring of a certain disciple whose 
name, according to Taylor, was Romanus. I do not 
doubt that this plate is of an age long subsequent to 
that given it by Taylor, because we know positively 
from the uniform, univocal testimony of writers of the 
highest authority in the earliest ages, that baptism 
was only by immersion,^ except in cases of " clinic 
baptism." But even granting that the plate is really 
as old as A. D. 300, it only proves that an indifferent 
artist made an indifferent picture in which he repre- 
sented a person baptized naked by pouring. The 
voice of history cannot be set aside by such question- 
able testimony. If a plate really genuine, of the age 
of Christ, or of His apostles, could be found, repre- 
senting the baptism of Christ, or of the jailor, or of 
the eunuch, there would be some confirmatory evi- 
dence in it that probably the baptisms took place as 
represented. But even then, unless the Divine record 
taught otherwise than it does, I should still cling to 
the Old Bible statement. Baptizo tells me that im- 
mersion only was the mode appointed by Christ and 
practiced by His apostles. No picture of doubtful 
age, or of questionable origin, could set aside such 
evidence, or, in the least, shake my faith. The anti- 
quary Ciampini says this, and I quote from Taylor^s 
book ; "• That the rite of baptism was anciently per- 
formed, hy immersion^ we have the testimony of nu- 
merous representations^ and of various loriters,^' 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 235 

That is sufficient. Why did not Mr. Taylor give us 
a few of the '^numerous representations" which rep- 
resent baptism by immersion ? It did not exactly 
suit his purpose. The Baptists to prove the mode of 
baptism, appeal to the Word of God; their opponents 
go to pictures J etc. 

4. Elsewhere I have produced a great deal of evidence 
in favor of the Baptists^ from the writings of the first 
scholars of the world. No attempt has been made to 
conceal the fact that these great men were the oppo- 
nents of the Baptists, and, therefore, both practiced 
sprinkling or pouring, and infant baptism. It is a 
matter of profound gratulation that we so hold the 
truth in its purity, that even those who practice dif- 
ferently, are forced by the dictates of reason, candor, 
and truth, to endorse and confirm by their testimony 
that for which Baptists are ready to yield everything. 
So far from their practice militating against the force 
and weight of their evidence, it seems to me quite 
otherwise. If they had testified in behalf of their 
own cause, like " swift witnesses,^^ as Dr. Miller, and 
other lesser lights do, we might suspect their motives 
or their fairness and candor ; but when the foremost 
men of all the churches testify favorably to the truth 
of Baptist principles, and that, too, in direct opposi- 
tion to their own creeds and practice, we can only 
conclude that they have done so because the voice of 
conscience so demanded. I quote the following judi- 
cious and forcible passage as germain to the subject : 



236 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

" It is saidj if we take tlieir testimony, we must take 
tbe whole of it, that wliicli is against, as well as for 
us. This is not true. Yv^hat they say in favor of 
their own peculiar views, may be prompted by preju- 
dice and party zeal, but what they admit in our favor 
in opposition to their peculiar views and practice, is 
not liable to this objection. When parties are at law, 
to prevent putting oft the suit, one side sometimes 
admits something that the other proposes to prove by 
an absent witness, this does not oblige them to receive 
all their testimony. What Pedobaptists say in their 
own favor, is pleading their own cause^ and is not 
evidence at all. What they admit against themselves 
is testimony, and may be used as such by their oppo- 
nents."* I hesitate not to say, that it seems to me, 
if the great writers alluded to had conformed their 
practice to what they admit to be the truth, they 
had been much more consistent. Indeed, believing as 
they do, I could not continue their i^ractice, I had, 
therefore, to change my ecclesiastical connection. In 
the last edition of the Methodist Discipline, in the 
XXII Article of Religion, you will find the following, 
which I dare not endorse : '• It is not necessary that 
rites and ceremonies should in all places be the same, 
or exactly alike ; for they have been always differ- 
ent,^' &c. The last clause reads thus : '^ Every par- 
ticular church may ordain^ change^ or abolish rites 
and ceremonies^ so that all things may be done to 

*ReY.G.W.Purifoy. 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 237 



edification/' Now, in what sense is the word '' rite 



'; 



used ? Not certainly in the sense of ceremony, for 
that would be unmeaning tautology, as that word fol- 
lows. It is, no doubt, used to express the idea of 
'^ external observance/' Now, is not baptism a rite ? 
If not^ what is it ? f/ Baptism is nothing but a rite ; 
a rite is nothing but a form. If we would receive 
baptism^ we must perform the rite ; and if we would 
perform the rite, we must observe the form/' Now, 
vfhat mode did Christ appoint ? Let the arguments 
and testimonies adduced in these pages answer. He 
appointed immersion^ and that only, as is shown in 
the example He gave us when He was himself im- 
mersed, and in the command which He uttered, and 
which constitutes the only authority and commission 
under which His ministry noiv acts. ^' If we are 
sprinkled, will it not also follow, that we have not ob- 
served the form ; that if we have not observed the 
form, we have not performed the rite ; and that if we 
have not performed the rite, we have not received tJie 
baptism, or, in other words, have not obeyed the 
Saviour's command to be baptized.^^"^' 

If the passage quoted from the Discipline means 
what I suppose, then it teaches that a church may do 
what I believe only belongs to God. He appoints 
His own institutions, and He only can change or re- 
voice them. I have no idea that the great body of 

* Letter quoted by Prof. Stuart. 



238 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

Methodists would for one moment endorse such teach- 
ing. They read this article of religion, but place a 
different construction upon it. They, doubtless, re- 
gard " rites'^ as mere church ceremonials — the mere 
costume of the church. In this light it is, of course, 
not objectionable. But I do not believe that the 
framers of that article so regarded it. They referred^^ 
I dare say, to the rite of baptism. 



-WHAT IS BAPTISM? 239 



NUMBER XXVII. 

Immersion Established by Sufficient Evidence— Two Hundred Pedo- 
baptist Ministers supposed to unite with the Baptists Annually— AVhaf 
Bishop Smith, of Kentucky, says— Positive Institutions to be Faith- 
fully Observed— Extracts from Prof. Curtis. 

When you sit down to the investigation of any 
subject, you need not expect to find such a mathe- 
matical demonstration made out, that cavil will not 
raise its ugly head to dispute every argument, and to 
question every fact that may be offered. When we 
know that, "men have made objections even to the 
reality of their own existence, in spite of the testimony 
of their consciousness,'^ we may well expect that dis- 
putatious or sceptical minds will take exceptions to 
everything that depends either upon testimony or 
argument. " An insincere mind may attempt often 
to reason away, by a thousand cavils and objections, 
the obliga!:ions of even the clearest law/' The argu- 
ments to be found in the writings of the ablest Bap- 
tist theologians constitute a fortification so solid and 
so impregnable, that no arms hitherto invented by 
Pedobaptist genius, and directed by Pedobaptist skill, 
have been able to inflict any serious damage, much 
less to shake its substautial foundations. They have 



240 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

tried upon its massive walls every kind of enginery, 
seige guns, field artillery, and small arms — logic, and 
learning, and ridicule— and yet all their efforts have 
proved fruitless. Some Pedobaptist captains are 
even now essaying to take it by assault, as others 
have tried in vain before them, and yet how futile 
and unwise ! While the ranks of the assailants are 
being rapidly thinned, the garrison has been steadily 
increasing. The citadel of truth still stands intact 
and defiant, built securely upon the uncorrupted 
Word of God, whilst over all, the banner of Jesus 
^' full high advanced," proudly flings its untarnished 
and gleaming folds to the breeze. 

The evidence in favor of immersion is overwhelm- 
ing. No unprejudiced mind can resist it. It is a 
wise canon laid down by the distinguished Rev. Dr. 
Woods, of Andover, that, '' A doctri7ie proved by 
sufficient evidence^ is not to be rejected on any ao- 
Govmt ivJiatever,^' Nov/ apply this canon to ifnmer- 
sion. I ask you, reader, if it has not been ^^ proved 
by sufficient evidence V^ If so, it must not " be re- 
jected on any account whatever.^^ It is not to be 
wondered at, then, when we learn that every iceeJc 
during the year a minister of some Pedobaptist de- 
nomination changes his church connection and unites 
with the Baptists. Professor Jewett states, that in 
Mississippi, there is an aged minister who has im- 
mersed forty Pedobaptist ministers. This speaks 
volumes. It is no wonder that during each year at 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 241 

least tvjo thousand communicants of other churches 
are found going over to the Baptists. See Jewett. 
^^ A Baptist minister in Western Virginia, within 
the last four years, has baptized over two hundred 
persons who had been members of other churches. 
The aged minister, above referred to, has, at various 
times, buried with Christ in baptism, more than four 
hundred persons of this class. '^ 

When we examine the tremendous mass of evi- 
dence in favor of immersion, it ought not to be a 
matter of surprise that such divines as Bishop Smith, 
of the Episcopal Church, Diocese of Kentucky, 
should be compelled to declare, that he and mant/ of 
his Western brethren, were ^' constrained to admit 
immersion to have been ^ semper, uhiqiie, et ab omni- 
bus.'^ '^ He confesses to " being exceedingly galled" 
by the question so often asked, " if you believe in 
immersion why do you not practiee it; or, at least, 
why do you not yourself submit to it?" With this 
he is " often posed," and knows no answer but. 
jSTow, reader, try and guess Vv^hy this candid prelate 
is not immersed. You will have to give it up. 
Why, he says, '' he knows of no answer but the want 
of a suGoession of immersed administrators in the 
Episcopal Church." Now, if he were a Methodist 
Bishop, he would not then be troubled about such 
figments of the brain as ^^Apostolical Succession," he 
would have to be immersed. What a pity, then, he 
is not a Methodist Bishop ! But he continues : 



242 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

'^ How enviable the position of the Greek and Asiatic 
Churches. And hovj deeply to he deplored the con- 
dition to which Protestantism is reduced by this 
(sprinkling) among the many other bepabtures from 
the Catholic Church, of the great Roman schism." 
Thus far, is from, a letter in the " Church Record'' 
w^hich he is said to be the author of, by his Kentucky 
brethren. The extracts are from Prof. Curtis. The 
following is taken from a letter bearing his own sig- 
nature : '' I Ao fully and unhesitatingly believe that 
no instance of either adult or infant baptism occurred 
during the first three centuries except by immersion , 
save only in a few cases of clinic (bed-ridden) bap- 
tism, and that to this practice all the incidental 
notices of Holy Scripture best conform.'^ I cannot 
but believe, after having with much labor and care 
investigated the subject, that the testimony of all in- 
quirers after truth would be similar to that of the 
Kentucky Bishop if they v\^ere equally fair and can- 
did. But Bishop Smith gives expression to another 
opinion so strange, considering its source, that it 
must not be omitted. He says that, ^' God in His 
vnse providence has p>ermitted the rise of the various 
sects of Baptists for the purpose of ultimately re- 
storing the PRIMITIVE mode of baptism.'^ May 
they so labor for Jesus and His cause, that the barriers 
which superstition and tradition have erected may be 
broken down, and all the people of God agreeing 
in the observance of His appointed ordinances be 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 243 

found united under the same banner, with shields 
locked, fighting against a common enemy for a com- 
mon cause! May the New Testament Church 
yet be the model for every earthly church, and may 
every humble and obedient spirit be found building 
" on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, 
Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner." 

St. Paul enjoins it upon Christians that they 
should "keep the ordinances as he delivers them^^ 
and our blessed and adorable Saviour says that " if a 
man love me, he will keep my words.^^ Now, is not 
baptism a positive law, and does it not become us 
foAthfully and scrupv2ously to obey our Master in its 
observance? Hence, Dr. Summers contends that 
^■' Christianity would not be suited to man, as a com- 
plex being, if it had not positive institutions, as well 
as dogmatic and ethical principles." Have we any 
right whatever to either add to or take from this 
command? Dr. Summers truthfully asserts that 
■•' the same authority which imposes an obligation is 
required for the repeal thereof; and the great Legis- 
lator did not see fit to enact any law for the govern- 
ment of his church, except in his own proper per- 
son. ^^'^ 

Baptism, then, is a positive institution — it was en- 
acted by the great Legislator, and we dare not in any 
way alter it, as the " same authority which imposes 

f Summers on baptism, a Methodist publication. 



244 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

an obligation is required'^ to repeal or chauge it. 
Nor is it optional with us to deviate from its faithful 
and exact observance. Are not positive laws given 
to us for a particular object — do they not " serve as 
touch-stones to obedience f^ Why, as Prof. Curtis 
well remarks^ a " command from vjhich we are at 
liherty to devioM, is to us no command at alL^^ In 
such a command there is nothing positive about it. 
And yet all writers are agreed that baptism is a posi- 
tive lav/. To argue^ then^ and to act upon the as- 
sumption that a command of Christ is of no import- 
ance — that we may disobey^ disregard^ or alter it at 
our will, is a bold, wicked attempt to subvert Chris- 
tianity — is to iusult the Divine Law Giver, and to 
bring eternal ruin upon the soul. All men wdth re- 
gard to religious matters feel the want o^ jjositive 
precepts — they crave something that is authoritative. 
In this really consists the true strength of the Romish 
Church. It comes to man in his weak and sinful 
nature, and speaking to him as by authority , it pro- 
poses to give him absolution. It affects to speak in 
place of God, to represent on earth that power which 
belongs alone to Heaven — to keep those mysterious 
keys which shall bind the soul in the adamantine 
chains of woe, or loose the soul from its prison home 
and restore it to the marvellous liberty and light of 
the gospel. It speaks for God^ and its decisions 
must be regarded as infallible and inflexible. 

Prof. Curtis thinks it is this felt necessity — this 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 245 

unsatisfied longing for something substantial and 
authoritative — that gave rise to Puseyism, that fun- 
gus growth upon the genuine tree of Protestantism. 
He says Puseyism '^ is the panting of earnest, of self- 
righteous hearts^ fo7^ a religion of positive institu- 
tions,'^' He says farther and most admirably^ that 
'' it is the rebounding of the popular mind from the 
excess of laxity and indifference as to ordinances into 
the old extreme of superstition.'^ In the church of 
Christ are to be found two classes that are extremists. 
The one disregarding all sacraments as of no import- 
ance w^hatever : the other^ investing them with an 
exaggerated^ superstitious^ magical powder and efficacy. 
To the former belong the Quakers, to the latter be- 
long Papists and Puseyites. (See Prof. Curtis.) The 
Baptists have always occupied the middle ground, 
contending that it is our imperative duty to faith- 
fully ^^ keep the ordinances" of Christ as they were 
ordained by Him and ^^ delivered'^ unto the churches. 
All Protestants have felt the force of this, w^henever 
they have been called upon to encounter the learning 
and genius of Rome in regard to her alteration of 
the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. They can only 
vanquish the advocates of such daring usurpation 
and corruption by steadily maintaining that the two 
sacraments — Baptism and the Supper — must be 
rigidly observed as they have been commanded, that 
is, by immersing the believer, and by administering 
both bread and wi7ie to the laity. If you do not 



546 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

pertinaciously insist upon such a rigid adherence to 
specifiG and positive commands, then Rome triumphs, 
SLud s<M€rdotaUsm, unknown to the Bible, will con- 
tinu^e to flourish in rank and offensive luxuriance, 
and all that shall be brought within the compass of 
its baleful power shall wilter and perish. ^^Now 
when Roman Catholicism and Puseyism on the one 
side, are putting the authority and customs of the 
church ABOVE the New Testament, and when infi- 
delity in all its forms and shades on the other, is 
putting ABOVE IT the reason and mo ral philosophies 
of the day, there is no lesson of Christian truth more 
central, more Catholic and valuable than this, that 
an unfeigned, practical, implicit loyalty to that system 
of religiomchich Christ and His apostles gave us — 
that and nothing else is Christianity/^ (Curtis.) 
Let us heed the apostle, then, when he says, '^1 praise 
you, brethren, that ye keep the ordinances AS I de- 
livered them unto you/^ 

Prof. Curtis says, most truly, that ^^ the only ques- 
tion is, whether we shall have a series of forms and 
symbols teaching error or teaching truth ; those es- 
tablished by the Saviour of men, or those which 
spring up out of the corruptions of after ages.^' 
This question is certainly of tremendous import. It 
must be practically met and acted upon, and you, 
dear reader, if in the church, are giving the w^eight 
of your influence to the side of corrupting inventions 
and innovations, or to the side of true Biblical insti- 



WHAT IB BAPTISM? §4f 

tutions; you are struggling and working for the 
Christianity of Tradition^ or for the Christianity of 
God's Book. 

In baptism the believer promises to live a life un- 
spotted from the world^ to be pure^ blameless, and 
undefiled, and to consecrate himself unreservedly to 
the service of his Redeemer and Friend ; whilst on 
the other hand Christ pledges himself to be with him 
in trouble, to deliver him, and finally to bear him 
triumphantly to glory, if earnestly relying upon His 
sustaining grace the believer devotes himself to the 
great work of Christian life. Baptism to the believer 
is yet more. It is a solemn pledge to him of a res- 
urrection to eternal life. Chrysostim therefore says, 
^^Our being baptized, even immersed in water, and 
our rising again out of it, is a symbol of our descend- 
ing into the grave, and our returning thence. Where-* 
fore St. Paul calls baptism a bicrial. For he says, 
we are buried with Christ by baptism into death.'' 
It becomes, then, a matter of serious and urgent im- 
portance, to preserve in its purity and essence the rite 
of baptism as it was committed by its Author to the 
churches. It is highly important because it is abso- 
lutely impossible to denude baptism of any of those 
^^ principles which it teaches, professes, and pledges y^^ 
and yet preserve the right in its purity and force. 
Those great principles are not " interpolations into 
the Christian system," but " they are realities, all 
engrafted by Christ himself into the initiating ordi- 



248 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

nance of His dlscipleship/^ It certainly, then, be- 
hooves us to rigidly and exactly perform the sacra- 
mental rite of baptism as commanded by our Lord 
and Saviour, as a solemn, impressive '^ act of spiritual 
worship'^ to the Triune God — ^\as the most eloquent 
preacher of all the chief doctrines of Christianity/^ 
(See Curtis.) 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 249 



NUMBER XXVIII. 

Various Objections urged against Baptists by their Opponents Answered— 
Some of the Great Names among Baptists— Numbers and Learning 
cannot Sanctify Error, &o. 

Although I am protracting this series beyond the 
limits contemplated, I must beg of the reader, in- 
dulgence for this number and a succeeding one^ when 
I shall have done. I desire here to refer to an objec- 
tion (of no force, but still a favorite weapon with a 
certain class of minds) which I have heard fre- 
quently urged against the Baptists. Say such objec- 
tors : 

" I take for granted that the Baptists are in error, 
because they have so feiu men of acknowledged 
learning and ability, and their opponents have so 
many.^^ I reply. 

1. It shows both presumption and ignorance "to 
take for granted^^ what is really in dispute. If the 
Baptists are wrong, surely so much learning and 
ability, can establish it. If they are so very igno- 
rant^ surely the prodigious learning of their prodigi- 
ous adversaries will be able to exjpose all their at- 
tempts at philological criticism and controversial dis- 
cussion. That this has not beep done, is patent to 



250 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

every attentive investigator of the matter in dispute. 
If Pedobaptist learning^ so much relied upon, has 
been too much for the ignorance of Baptists, please 
tell me ivtiy those astounding concessions which I 
have presented in previous numbers from certainly 
the foremost scholars of all Pedohaptism? "When 
before were so many concessions made to error by its 
inveterate enemies ? 

2. Any number of learned men cannot possibly 
sanctify error or demolish truth. Whenever error^ 
however sustained by imposing learning and high 
ability, comes in violent contact with truth, it inevi- 
tably falls to pieces before the incombustible walls of 
her sanctuary. As Professor Curtis, with equal 
truth and felicity remarks, '^ Nujahers cannot justify 
an unscriptural practice — ability cannot sanction it — 
lyiety cannot atone for it, or time so consecrate it with 
the dust of centuries, that henceforth we should re- 
ceive and venerate it/^ The well informed reader 
knows that in all ages of the world, and among all 
nations, the renowned have been often found battling 
earnestly for the most pernicious and erroneous doc- 
trines. But we care not even though it should be 
true, that ive are not ecjual to our boastful opponents 
in human learning, we with none the less confidence, 
meet their attacks and defy their batteries. Let them 
count their learned by regiments and even brigades : 
let them stand up in defence of infant or adult 
sprinkling, and placing on the other side our Captain 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 251 

Jesus Christ, King of Kings and Lord of Lords^ we 
will await the issue. 

3. The history of this controversy has shown, (1.) 
That the champions for the defence of the Bible and 
its ordinances, have delivered battle and been over- 
whelmingly victorious over its opposers. Immersion 
now receives the sanction and endorsement of Pedo- 
baptist erudition, and the mists of infant sprinkling 
are rapidly disappearing as the light of Bible truth 
breaks more profoundly vipon the world. As to im- 
mersion, wherever civil and religious liberty is en- 
joyed, and there is no State religion, (what a misno- 
mer !) then you see the innovation and corruption of 
Popery giving way before the advancing influence of 
Bible Christianity, and then you behold the practice 
of immersion gradually increasing. Within some 
fifty years the Baptists have so increased that eight 
millions probably of the people of the United States 
iidw embrace Baptist principles. As to infant hap- 
tism^ we have seen how rapidly it is growing into 
desuetude. (2.) That it is not so very certain that 
those who practice Pedobaptism can now claim for its 
defence more men of established and varied learning, 
than can be arrayed on the other side. 

4. The Baptists can present a long and brilliant 
iarray of names upon the rolls of their illustrious dead 
and their illustrious living. They have had such 
men as John Bunyan, (to whom the eloquent Ma- 
caulay pays his highest tribute ;) Andrew Fuller, 



252 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

(concerning whom Dr. Chalmers said^ that his works 
constituted an armory of theological learning, so 
richly stored, that the student who mastered them 
was thoroughly furnished v/ith everything requisite 
to make him able and profound in his profession :) 
Robert Hall, (perhaps the noblest specimen of a 
pulpit orator that any age or country has ever pro- 
duced, who could draw enraptured congregations to 
their feet by the overwhelming incantation of his 
eloquence, and yet could write in a style as eloquent 
and philosophical as Edmund Burke, and equal any 
of the grand old masters in the chosen fields of their 
excursion ;) John Foster, (whose essays are so 
original, so singularly profound, and so eloquent, 
that they are read wherever genius is admired, or 
the English language is known;) Alexander 
Carson, (pronounced by the ^' Scotchman'^ a first- 
rate scholar, a sound philosopher, an irresistible 
reasoner, and a profound theologian; declared by the 
'' Scottish Guardian,^^ (Pedobaptist,) " to be able to 
stand his ground against any rivahlii])^'^ and des- 
cribed by the ^^ orthodox Presbyterian,^^ of Scotland, 
as '^ standing in the verg Mgliest rank as a philo- 
sopJiie theologian, and frofound^ original^ indepen- 
dent tliinher,^^ and as being '^far in advance of the 
present age,^^ in his " knowledge of the philosophy 
of language;^') Cary, the first and greatest of all 
missionaries ; the accomplished Dr. Ryland ; the 
admirable Abraham Booth ; the very learned Dr. 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 253 

Gill, probably superior in erudition to any English 
commentator ; and many others among the mighty 
dead of England than whom among their contempo- 
raries there were few equal, and, with reference to 
some, there were none greater. The grandest master 
of song that prolific Albion ever had, was a Baptist. 
I, of course, allude to peerless John Milto:n'. 
Among living English divines, not to mention 
others, they present such names as Baptist Noel 
and Charles Spuegeon, (by far the most famous 
and wonderful pulpit speaker of this century, despite 
all efforts to depreciate him,) whilst among living 
Americans may be mentioned such men as President 
Francis Wayland, (if he is not the first philoso- 
pher on the Continent, who is?)''*^' Dr. W. R. Wil- 
liams, no less facile, and classical, and elegant with 
the pen, than eloquent and impressive with the 
tongue ; Dr. Richard Fuller, (whose reputation 
as a man of rare power and eloquence, is national ;) 
Dr. John A. Broadus, (wonderfully profound, and 
though comparatively young now, was pronounced 
by a Richmond lawyer some time ago, to be the 
ablest man then in Virginia, belonging to any pro- 
fession;) Prof. Conant, (doubtless one of the fore- 
most scholars in America,) and scores of others, 
North and South, eminent for piety, for varied and 



♦Since this was written, the accomplished Wayland has departed this 
life, full of years and full of honors, 
X. 



254 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

accurate scholarship^ and for eloquence and general 
ability. 

5. It is no evidence, whatever, that that church 
necessarily contains the truth because it may boast 
of a more imposing array of men of learning than 
can other churches. A church may contain men of 
the sanctity of Fenelon and a Kempis ; of the won- 
derfully subtile genius and learning of Pascal ; of 
the controversial talents of Wiseman ; of the ripe 
scholarship and large ability of the ecclesiastical his- 
torian Fleiiry^ ^nd yet be made up of superstition, 
untruth, sacerdotalism, and mummery. Is it possi- 
ble, that a majority is never wrong — that numbers 
constitute right and truth ? If this were so, then 
alas for this poor, sin-ridden world ! Roman Catho- 
licism would '^Lord it over God's heritage,'^ and 
misery, and ruin, and ignorance, and death, would 
mark the progress of its triumphal, crushing Jugger- 
naut. ^^ We are united, you are divided,'^ says the 
Romanist to the Protestant. '^ We have antiquity 
and the learning of centuries on our side : you are 
comparatively recent, and you count but one name 
in your galaxy of fame^ whilst we count ttvo, there- 
fore we are right — you are wrong.^^ And yet what 
true Protestant would regard such a boastful decla- 
ration ? At any rate, the Baptists would not^ as tJie^ 
are not Protestants, for thei/ have never been a part of 
the Romish Hierarchy^ and hence have never '' pro- 
iested^^ and because they look to the Lord Jesus and 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 255 

His teachings^ and not to insolent dogmatism and 
unscrupulous priest-craft. If the argument used 
against Baptists so frequently, that they are opposed 
hy the learned and hy numbers, were really worth 
anything, it would place us back in Mediaeval dark- 
ness^ and the great German Reformation was a fraud 
and a curse. Why might not a zealous Romanist 
say to Martin Luther, " You are a presumptuous 
fellow. You, a poor, obscure monk, of the convent 
of Erfurth, to pretend that you have discovered the 
truth, and that the Pope and all his cardinals, and 
the Sarbonne, and the thousand men of ability and 
learning are all in error, and ihdii you alone possess 
the truth — out upon such a Tellow ! He is pestilent 
and intolerable — away with him, and let the fires 
lick up his flesh !'^ This would be a summary argu- 
ment indeed, but after all w^ould not establish that 
the monk Martin Luther was wrong and they were 
right. Nor will such an argument prove that the 
Baptists do not hold the truth, because they have 
Popery still arrayed against them, as well as those 
Protestant denominations who practice Popish rites. 
To the Bible do the defenders of truth appeal, and 
you have seen, reader, how the most learned defend- 
ers of sprinkling yield the point, when that unerring 
Oracle is alone resorted to. The fact is, Baptist 
principles have thus far exerted such a powerful, 
salutary influence, and spread with such astonishing 
rapidity, not because men distinguished for splendid 



236 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

abilities and for vast human learning advocated them, 
but because they ivere true — founded solely upon the 
uncorrupted Word of Jehovah. But sustained or not 
by brilliant genius and consecrated learning, these 
principles based alone upon God's immutable Word, 
have so impressed the mind of the world, that the 
untutored peasant and the trained intellect are found 
among the membership of Baptist churches. Nay, 
more than this, these principles have so influenced 
the minds of thinkers and scholars, that many like 
the late Dr. Archibald Alexander, of Princeton, 
or Dr. Horace Bushwall, (author of a splendid 
work on ^'Nature and the Supernatural,^^) have ever 
been, according to their ovrn confessions, extremely 
doubtful as to infant baptism^ or on the eve of uniting 
w^ith the Baptists, but were restrained by considera- 
tions lamentably fallacious and unsatisfactory ; or 
like Carson, a Presbyterian, and Judson, a Congre- 
gationalist; and like Noel, and Pengilly, and Fuller, 
and Hooper, who were Episcopalians; and like 
Wiberg, and Oncken, Lutherans ; and Remington, 
and Shaver, Methodists, they have really severed 
their form-cr church relations, and united with those 
w^ho alone have preserved the institutions of Christ as 
He gave them to His church. Nay, more yet, these 
principles have fairly extorted such concessions from 
the most renowmed Pedobaptists as to tremendously 
damage the very cause they espoused. AVe are free 
to admit that it is impossible to reconcile their ad- 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 257 

missions with their practice. With that we have 
nothing to do. It only shows the plainer that (as 
the great Porson said) " the Baptists have the ad- 
vantao^e of us/^ when discussion and examination 
forces such astonishing admissions^ and elicits such 
testimony from the ranks of their most learned oppo- 
nents as to the truth of those principles for which so 
many Baptists in a past age have suifered^ and for 
which so many have died a martyr's death. The 
reader has seen soaie of those admissions^ and he 
must judge for himself^ if they do not place a pro- 
digious weapon in the hands of the Baptists for 
breaking of the theological heads of their adversa- 
ries. In the next number^ I will close these reflec- 
tions. 



258 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 



NUMBER XXIX. 

Concluding Remarks — What Chalmers, Baird, Newton, and Bancroft 
say of the Baptists— The Testimony of Drs. Dermont and Ypeig— 
Note. 

The intelligent reader must have been wonderfully 
impressed with the overwhelming mass of evidence 
which has been adduced in this necessarily brief dis- 
cussion. He^ no doubt, has often said to himself, or 
asked others, '' Is it not exceedingly strange after 
this cumulative evidence — this vast array of learning 
which has been introduced from the other side to 
sustain and establish Baptist practice and principles, 
that the witnesses thus testifying should still main- 
tain their departure from Scriptural teachings and 
early church practice?" And it is, dear reader, mar- 
vellously strange ! It shows that men, even the 
best, are partisans. That the hundreds of able and 
erudite Pedobaptist witnesses who have conceded so 
much that is favorable to the Baptist cause — the 
cause of truth and right — should have shown their 
faith by their works is quite true. It is a lamentable 
circumstance, for the cause of Bible Christianity and 
harmony, that they have not '' practiced'^ what ^t 
times, at least, they have ^^ preached." Why they 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 259 

have not done so, it may be difficult to understand. 
Some, perhaps, have failed to do so, on account of 
the strength of early predilections — others have not 
felt willing to disturb their denominational rela- 
tions — and others still have a horror of the charge 
of ficJdeness. The latter, no doubt^ is a tremendous 
bugbear with many. They have not moral firmness 
enough to dare do right in the face of scurrility and 
the sleepless energy of a prating, busy gossip. But 
many are influenced, as Prof. Stuart was, by the 
strange idea that it was of ^^ but little moment as to 
a particular observance of external rites. ^^ Pendle- 
ton continues : '^ Such persons seem to forget that 
the way to shoiv that the heart is right with God^ is to 
do the very thing lie has commanded.'' Now, their 
testimony has established clearly what that is. Their 
excuses for not obeying are vain, their reasons unsat- 
isfactory. "Those persons w4io admit that Jesus 
Christ commanded His disciples to be immersed, and 
at the same time array themselves in practical oppo- 
sition, to immersion, are accountable to Him.^' They 
have taught me, at least, what my Saviour practiced, 
what He commanded, w^hat the apostles practiced, 
what the church practiced for two hundred and thirty 
years without a solitary exception, and what was 
practiced by all Christians for thirteen hundred years, 
save only in extreme cases. They have taught me 
that this practice was immersion. Whatever reasons, 
however plausible — whatever sophisms, however 



260 WHAT is BAPTISM? 

beautiful and transparent, or learned and obscure — 
they may assign to justify their action^ I, at least, in 
the fear of God, have done what I sincerely believe 
to be right. If what tJiei/ have taught me be true, 
I CO aid not have aruy doubt in the premises as to the 
course of conduct incumbent upon me to pursue. To 
the only wise God I stand or fall. 

It not infrequently happens that the adventurous, 
scientific explorer, as he labors in behalf of his fel- 
low-men, is called upon to offer himself as a sacrifice 
in the cause to which, with the enthusiasm of a 
devotee, he had consecrated himself. With him, as 
with the proud, ambitious soldier, ^^the paths of 
glory lead but to the grave.^^ A wise and inscruta- 
ble Providence seems to order that good to the child- 
ren of men should only be secured through tribula- 
tion and suffering, and that the great benefactors of 
the human family should mark often the progress of 
their philanthropy by their own gory footprints. As 
with individuals, so with communities of men. It 
seems with regard to the Baptists, that it has been 
appointed that the hallovv'ed blessings which they 
should be instrumental in conveying to the world 
should be accomplished at the expense of much 
heart-agony and physical suffering. I pretend not 
to understand God's plans, for they are past finding 
out. But when I turn to the pages of the faithful 
historian and read how thousands of Baptists, or 
those holding similar doctrines^ but existing in dif- 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 261 

ferent ages under different names, have died in be- 
half of soul-liberty — have died as ^^ witnesses of 
Jesus" because they strenuously maintained and con- 
tended for the faith once delivered to the saints and 
for the ordinances as they y^ere committed to the 
church by its Great Head, I am forced to wonder 
why the sacrifice and suffering were necessary. But 
then I remember, that it has become an axiom with 
the common language of the people, that the tree of 
religious and civil liberty must be ever watered by 
the precious blood of martyrs. Living as we do, in 
times when the fruit of this tree is fed upon by so 
many kindreds and peoples, and its hallowed, heal-' 
ing blessings are so generally recognized, we perhaps 
fail in appreciating the fact that this constitutes the 
noble legacy which the Baptists of dl ages have be- 
queathed the living generations and to generations 
yet unborn, and for which with martyr devotion they 
have struggled and suffered, and agonized and died 
from immemorial time. So true is this, that heca- 
tombs of victims who have fallen under the cruel 
inflictions of merciless enemies may be found so 
thickly scattered adown the long, long vista which 
stretches through the centuries of years, as to consti- 
tute MILE STONES by which the student may thread 
his way to the dim, dark cloisters of antiquity long 
since hoary and venerable with age. Not only have 
Baptists been subjected to the exquisite tortures 
which a hellish and cunning ingenuity could devise^ 



262 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

but they have been always the objects at which learn- 
ing, and magic, and buffoonery, have aimed their 
poisoned weapons. I have seen defamation and con- 
tempt, wit and ridicule, employed in the graceless 
effort to tarnish their name and impair their influ- 
ence. I have witnessed the unwillingness of other 
denominations to recognize the pure evangelical doc- 
trines to which they tenaciously held ; the earnest 
spirituality which pervaded the life of many, and the 
deep, salutary, abiding influence which they were 
always exerting upon society at large. But however 
reluctant small minds and narrow souls may be to 
confess these truths, it is a pleasing circumstance that 
there are persons of capacious intellects, of exalted 
natures, of large, generous, warmly-throbbing hearts, 
who have readily appreciated and cordially acknowl- 
edged the great worth of the Baptist denomination. 
Such a spirit was the great Scotch Presbyterian 
divine, Thomas Chalmees. See how genial sym- 
pathy and large heartedness found a ready utterance 
in the following noble and generous tribute : 

"• Let it never be forgotten of the Baptists, that 
they form the denomination of Fuller, and Gary, 
and Ryland, and Hall, and Foster ; that they origi- 
nated the first of all missionary enterprises ; that 
they have enriched the Christian literature of our 
country with an authorship of the most exalted piety , 
as well as of thQ first talent, and the first eloquence ; 
that they have waged a noble war with the hydra of 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 263 

^ntinomianism ; that perhaps, there is not amove 
intellectual community of ministers , or who have to 
their number put forth a greater amount of mental 
power and mental ability in the defence and illustra- 
tion of our common faith; and what is still better 
than all the triumphs of genius and understanding, 
who by their zeal and fidelity, and pastorate labor 
among the congregations which they have reared, 
have done more to swell the lists of genuine dis- 
CIPLESHIP in all the walks of private society , and 
thus both to uphold and extend the living Christi- 
anity of our nation/^ 

Another distinguished Presbyterian, and an Ameri- 
can, Rev. Dk. Baird, as quoted in Appleton's great 
work, the '^ New American Cyclopaedia,^' thus ex- 
presses himself with regard to the American Baptist 
ministry. He says they ^^ comprehend a body of 
men, who in point of talents, learning, and eloquence^ 
as well as devoted piety, have no superiors in the 
country.'^ According to the world-famous philoso- 
pher. Sir Isaac Newton, as quoted by Whiston, 
"The Baptists are the only body of Christians that 
HAS NOT symbolized with the church of Eome ;" 
whilst, according to the most renowned of American 
historians, Bancroft, '' the paths of the Baptists are 
paths of freedom, pleasantness, and peace J' 

In Holland they have a State religion. The 
King appointed two of his most distinguished schol- 
ars^ Dr. J, J. Dermont, his chaplain^ and Dr. 



264 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

Ypeig, Professor of Theology in the University of 
^Groningen^ ^^to ascertain if the claims of the Dutch 
Baptists had any foundation in the facts of history.'^ 
It will be certainly interesting to read their report, 
specially when this report emanates from learned men 
of an opposite religious faith. Here is what they 
say: 

"The Mennonites (Baptists) are descended from 
the tolerably pure evangelical Waldenses, who were 
driven by persecution into various countries : and 
who, during the latter part of the tv^elftli century^ 
fled into Flanders, and into the provinces of Hol- 
land and Zealand, where they lived simple and ex- 
emplary lives, etc., they were therefore in existence 
long hefore the Reformed Church of Netherlands. 
We have now seen that the Baptists who were for- 
merly called Anabaptists, and in later times Menno- 
nites, icere the original Waldenses, who have long in 
the history of the church received the honor of that 
origin. On this account, the Baptists may be con- 
sidered as the only Christian community which has 
stood since the days of the apostles^ and as a Chris- 
tian society which has preserved puke the doc- 
trines OF THE GOSPEL THROUGH ALL AGES. The 
perfectly correct external and internal economy of 
the Baptist denomination, tends to confirm the truthy 
which is disputed by the Komish church, that the 
Reformation brought about in the sixteenth century 
was in the highest degree necessary^ and; at the game 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 265 

time^ goes to refute the erroneous notions of the 
Catholics that their communion is the most ancient J^ 
Upon the strength of this candid report, made after 
proper investigation, the King of Holland offered 
these distinguished men a State salary, which they 
declined. 

My task is ended. My '^ reasons/^ in part, are 
now before the reader. For the rectitude of my 
conduct and the consciousness of my '^ change,^^ I 
appeal confidently to my Heavenly Father. Unlike 
man. He can read the heart aright. If my motives 
are misunderstood, and my character maligned, I 
will bear it all, with God's grace assisting, as a Chris- 
tian minister should. Sustained and cheered by the 
example of the Mastek, I have endeavored to follow 
in His footsteps, and trust that with becoming meek- 
ness and humility, I have gone ^^ to Him without the 
camp, bearing His reproach.^^ 

I devoutly pray that the benediction of God^s 
grace and mercy may rest upon His church every- 
where, and that the time may soon come when the 
Redeemer's banner shall iioat in triumph over all 
lands, upon its ample folds written in characters of 
imperishable lustre, ''1\\ things essential, UNITY; 
in things not essential, liberty; in all things 

CHARITY.^' 

Warrenton, N. C, May, 1867. 

Note.— In preparing this series (which was done to a great extent in 
two weeks) I have not, perhaps, always acknowleclffed my indebteclness 



266 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

to several writers. To Dr. Mell I have been often indebted. His work 
aided me no little when I was painfully and earnestly examining the 
subject before uniting with the Baptists. To other writers I am in- 
debted both for thought and facts. I make no pretensions to originality, 
and have no disposition to appropriate the honors of others. The matter 
has come from my own mind after it had long been dwelling upon the 
subject as presented by others. The manner of the discussion is, of 
course, my own. That thoughts strictly my own have been presented 
must be true, as no one, unless a hopeless dullard, could study any sub- 
ject as long as I have that of baptism, and not at least occasionally think 
for himself. But after all, the venerable Vicar of Shoreham, the famous 
Dr. Wall, furnishes the great mass of material out of which Pedobaptist 
Doctors are made, whilst the incomparable Carson supplies the main 
staple in the argument on the Baptist side. His great work has never 
been answered, nor Y,^ill it ever be as long as the New Testament lasts. 
He is to-day a century ahead of this generation in Biblical interpreta- 
tion. Any one conversant with his masterly work on that subject, will 
not gainsay this remark. Next to him, the most satisfactory book I read 
whilst examining the subject I have discussed, was Curtis' admirable 
work, entitled *' The Progress of Baptist Principles.'' Every Baptist in 
our land ought to familiarize himself with its instructive contents. 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 267 



APPENDIX. 



Although the following pages are not necessary to a correct 
understanding of the mooted subject of baptism, and did not 
appear in the Recorder ^ the points stated seem to me to be of 
sufficient importance to justify their insertion in the volume by 
way of an appendix. The ingenious glossings and confident 
statements of many Pedobaptist controversialists long deluded 
me. It is with the hope that readers will watch more narrowly 
their statements that I am led to pen the following. In what 
follows, I strive to be just and truthful, as I have in all that has 
been previously written. I would not wrong any man, but I 
would defend truth. 

In the course of my reading of Pedobaptist authors, I met 
with complaints against Baptist writers because they used cer- 
tain concessions which were to be found in the works of their 
opponents in order that their own opinions might be sustained 
and confirmed. This is the old complaint. Wall thus com- 
plained of Dr. Gale ; Walker of Mr. Danvers ; Dr. Rosser of 
Pendleton, Jewett, &c. But, probably in all these instances 
the complaints were ill-founded. The fact is, these complaints 
arise because the testimony adduced is sadly damaging to their 
cause. " The galled jade winces." In Dr. Eosser's work this 
complaint was deemed so important, that he devotes a chapter 
to the subject, heading it the ''Unfairness of the Baptists." 
Space will not allow a particular examination of this chapter, 
but there are a few points which need ventilation. The 
cjravamen of his charge seems to be that the Baptists '' very 
ofteii adduce Pedobaptist authors, divines, and commentators as 



268 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

witnesses in favor of immersion ; in doing this, tliey confound 
tlie admissions of the validity of immersion as a valid mode, 
with concessions in favor of immersion as the 072^3/ valid mode.'*' 
He characterizes this practice as a •' captivating, insidious, and 
extensive imposition." It is very easy to call names, or indulge 
in savage expletives, or bring charges. It is quite a different 
thing to sustain accusations. The attack of Dr. Rosser is com- 
mon among vmters of his school. They endeavor to get rid of 
the tremendous erFect Vvhich such admissions create by boldly 
and unceremoniously charging unfairness, etc. I have had oc- 
casion to examine some of the opinions quoted from the works 
of their opponents by Baptist writers, and I have found there 
was very good ground for using certain concessions and admis- 
sions. 

The reader is referred to other pages v/here I have quoted at 
some length from Professor Stuart. See also certain passages 
quoted from Calvin, Luther, Baxter, and others. These are, 
doubtless, true quotations, and yet you will be made to believe 
either that they are of no value or are spurious. The weight of 
the testimony must be escaped some way. Let the reader judge' 
for himself whether these passages are not really important and 
strongly confirmatory of the Baptist position. Dr. Wall even 
joins in the hue and cry against the " unfairness of the Bap- 
tists." But even he could not object when his declarations in 
regard to immersion are fairly quoted. It is not concealed that 
he was the great advocate of infant baptism. He is appealed 
to only as a v/itness testifying that iinrncrsio7i only was the 
primitive mode, and that the Bible contains no " express men- 
tion'' of infant baptism. Eight or wrong, he tlius believed and 
wrote. 

I cannot believe for a moment that any respectable Baptist 
author is depraved enough to consciously garble or pervert the 
writings of another author that he ma}^ build up his own opin- 
ions. Exposure is so certain, that a man must be either dis- 
honest, or singularly stupid, who would give a passage from an 
author to sustain his own views when he knew no such passage 



WHAT IB BAPTISM? 269 

was Jo be found. I can say for myself that I am not conscious 
of having done violence to the productions of any author. The 
cause which I advocate requires no such sacrifice of principle, 
and if it did, I trust I am not abandoned enough to yield to 
such temptation. But before I close, I wish to refer to Br. 
Rosser for a moment or two. I wish to show that he is guilty 
of the very '-'unfairness" he so ardently attacks. Pedobaptist 
writers are deprived of all benefit which arises from the con- 
cessions of adversaries, sim^ply because they have been unable 
to discover but very few concessions, and they of but little im- 
portance. But they are none the less gratified when they have 
found even an a2')parent admission in their favor, though to se- 
cure any benefit, they are often compelled to garble or misrep- 
resent. 

It is well knovm that Dr. Carson was the ablest writer in 
favor of immersion and believer's baptism that has thus far en- 
tered the arena on the Baptist side. He proves beyond all 
question that haptizo means immersion and nothing else. He 
writes a great many pages to prove this. Yet, Dr. Eosser, in 
endeavoring to criticize him, says, that ''Dr. Carson himself 
concedes that haptizo in this case (Luke xi : 38) means to pour^ 
as well as to wash, and, consequently, he contributes in deciding 
the mode as well as meaning of baptism." I assure the reader, 
that Dr. Carson concedes no such thing. Let me quote from 
his comment on this passage. He says : "In our version ebap- 
tisthe is translated wash. The objection is, does not haptizo ^ 
then, sometimes denote lo washf Na}^, farther, as the Jews 
washed the hands by having water poured on them, and as this 
passage respects the washing of the hands, is there not here evi- 
dence that the word in question sometimes signifies to wash hy 
pouring? This, surely, is a strong statement of their objection 
as our opponents can wish. Yet, in all its plausibility, / despise 
it. Even here^ the word signifies to di^o^ and not to luash.'^ 
This is enough. I refer the reader to Dr. Rosser 's work where 
he attempts to criticize the truly learned and able Carson for 
specimens of rare literary trifling and jejuno criticism. 



270 WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

Dr. Eosser, on page 69, says : ^-Dr. Carson, after assuming 
that haptizo ' always signifies to dijp^'' admits that he has ' all 
the lexicographers against him.' " Dr. Samuel Miller first 
gave the world this rare specimen of garbling. Dr. Summers 
follows in his wake, and says that " all lexicographers" being 
" against" Dr. Carson, that it is '■'■prima facie evidence ^ "^ 
that he was wrong in his opinion, and fatuous in trying to 
maintain it." ]N"ow, all this is unfair, and if these authors have 
read Dr. Carson, (which is doubtful,) it is inexcusable. Dr. 
Hodges follows Dr. Miller in his unfair statement. It simply 
misleads the reader, v/hilst it does an injury to the superior 
learning of Dr. Carson. There is really no conflict of opinion 
between Dr. Carson and the lexicographers. He says : ''My 
position is, that haptizo always signifies to dip — never expressing 
anything hut the mode. ISTow, as I have all the lexicographers 
and commentators against me in this opinion," &c., p. 53. In 
what opinion? Let us see. He and the lexicographers agree 
as to \X\^ ptrimaTy meaning, but differ as to the secondary. He 
says on page 57 : " What an insurmountable task it would be 
to master a language, if, in reality, words had as many difier- 
ent meanings as lexicons represent them ! Parkhurst gives six 
meanings to haptizo. I undertake to prove that it has but one ; 
yet he and I do not difi'er about the primary meaning of this 
word. He assigns to it figurative meanings. I maintain that 
in figures there is no different meaning of the word. It is only 
a figurative application. The meaning of the word is always 
the same. ISTor does any one need to have a figurative applica- 
tion explained in any other way than by giving the proper 
meaning of the word. "When this is known, it must be a bad 
figure that does not contain its own light. It is useless to load 
lexicons with figurative applications, except as a concordance." 
I have been thus particular in quoting from Dr. Carson because 
I was for a long time duped by these divines, and relying upon 
them, I often misrepresented what Dr. Carson had said. The 
intelligent reader, with the above extracts before him, can see 
wherein Dr. Carson differed from lexicographers. He and they 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 27i 

agree as to the prhnary meaning of laptizo. Prof. Stuart, (the 
great Congregationalist Ameiican Greek scholar,) as you re- 
member, says, that the 2r/^ima7y meaning of a word is always to 
be taken unless the context obviously demands another meaning. 
I defy Dr. Kosser, or any other D. D., to establish that lexicog- 
raphers give 2^oiiring or sjormkling as one of the so-called mean- 
ings of haptizo. They multiply meanings most unnecessarily, 
but never give to this word the meanings alluded to. 

A few words relative to Dr. Rosser on Prof. Stuart. The 
latter was a practicer of infant baptism, and of sprinkling and 
pouring. He, nevertheless, admits that the former is not de- 
rived from the command of Christ, or from any plain, certain 
example in Scripture. As to immersion, he admits that it was 
the primitive mode, although elsevv-here he argues to prove that 
the manner of performing the rite of baptism is immaterial. 
I:Tow, concerning him, Dr. Rosser holds the following unac- 
countable language : " Prof. Stuart's design is to vindicate the 
occasional practice of hnynersio'n by the Pedobaptist church from 
primitive times, through all succeeding ages, to the present 
times, and thus to establish the admissibility of immersion as a 
baptismal ceremony of the church dispensation." Is Dr Rosser 
dreaming or dawdling? I venture the opinion that no one else 
has discovered in Professor Stuart's work any such "design." 
I undertake to say that he had no such " design," and that the 
whole book, in spirit and letter, stands opposed to such a decla- 
ration. A statement that the ''design" of Irving's " Life of 
Washington" is to show that Gen. Green fought the battle of 
Guilford Court-house, is not really as ridiculous as this assertion 
of Dr. Rosser. It seems to me the only excuse for such a state- 
ment is to be found in the fact that probably Dr. Rosser has 
never read the author whose " design" he attempts to penetrate. 
Prof. Stuart's admissions as to the meaning of bajjtizo^ and the 
practice of immersion for thirteen hundred years, are too plain 
to be either misrepresented or misunderstood. Why, his con- 
cessions are so great and so numerous, that the Baptists have 
published an excellent edition of his work. If the " design" be 



272 WHAT JS BAPTISM? 

as set fortli by Br. Eosser, how is it that you cannot find a re- 
cent copy of Prof. Stuart's work bearing a Pedobaptist im- 
print ? They are willing for it to die and be forgotten. 

Dr. Eosser, on page 71, in a note, places together as much 
error and sophistry as I remember to have ever seen in so small 
a compass. His assertions in the light of history appear to me 
astounding. "What will the reader think of the following which 
Dr. E. copies from Dr. Pond and endorses, after he has read the 
remarkable statements made by distinguished and learned Pedo- 
baptists: Says the extract , '' Immersion was never considered 
esse7itial to hajotism till the rise of the Anabaptists in Germany, 
in the sixteenth century." iS'ow, if the renowned writers whom 
I have quoted elsewhere in giving a brief history of sprinkling 
knew concerning that which they affirmed, then these modern 
Doctors of Divinity are mistaken, and "immersion was consid- 
ered essential to baptism" hundreds of years before the period 
assigned by Dr. Pond. I refer the reader to the statement 
made by the Pedobaptist Wall relative to ISTovation. He will 
see from that case that it absolutely disqualified a minister from 
ecclesiastical promotion unless he had been immersed. Lord 
King confirms this opinion. 

Dr. Eosser also makes the following declaration. He says 
the "frequent allusions" to baptism "in the writings of the 
fathers — the commentaries which were written on both the Old 
Testament and the Xew, in which constant allusions are made 
to hdi^ii^m— contain not one word, in favor of the ground taken 
by the Baptists." I^ow, what does he mean by " ground taken 
by the Baptists ?" He must mean that the fathers and com- 
mentaries do not countenance or support the claim of the Bap- 
tists that immersion was the primitive, apostolical mode. If 
this be his meaning, then he is in direct antagonism to Augusti 
when he emphatically declares that the ancient practice of im- 
mersion is "a thing made out." He is opposed by Prof. Stuart 
when he avers the same thing, adding that " all writers who 
have thoroughly investigated the subject, conclude" thus. He 
says that he '' cannot see how it is possible for any candid man 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 273 

who ezamines the subject, to deny this." The weight of evi- 
dence is so crushing, that Wall says " he can but pity the weak 
endeavors of such Pedobaptists as would maintain the nega- 
tive;" he says farther, that the ancient practice of immersion 
appears from " an infinite number of passages" — these occurring, 
of course, in the writings of the fathers. Let the reader again 
refer to the history of sprinkling, and he will see when this was 
first introduced and hoio tolerated. In the Apostolical Con- 
stitution's of the 3d century, we read: "Baptism relates to 
the death of Christ ; the water answers to the grave ; the im- 
7nersion represents our dying with him ; the emersion our rising 
with him." If the reader will refer to Justin Martyr, Tertul- 
lian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil the 
Great, Gregory ISTysson, Chrysostom, Augustine, Theodoret, 
(all of whom are quoted from by Dr. Fuller at pp. 77-8-9,) he 
will find ample evidence to confirm the above declarations. 
Why, so manifest is this, that such distinguished authors as 
Mr. Chambers, of Edinburgh, says : ''In the primitive times 
this ceremony was performed by immersion.^ ^ Dr. Wall: 
" As for sprinkling. ^^ I say, as Mr. Blake, at its first coming 
UP in England, "Let them defend it that use it." 

Bingham, in his "Orgines Eccles," says : " Immersion was 
the original apostolical practice, so it continued to be the tini- 
versed practice of the church for mcmy ages^ 

Yenema. " It is without controversy that baptism, in the 
primitive church was administered by immersion into v/ater, 
and not by sprinkling." 

Salmasius. " The ancients did not baptize otherwise 
than by immersion." The fact is, as immersion was the uni- 
versal practice, there was no controversy about baptism for 
ages, but there have alv/ays been persons who earnestly con- 
tended for it, and practiced it with exceeding particularity, ever 
since there has been a disposition to alter the ordinances of 
Christ, and substitute therefor the inventions and "command- 
ments of men." 

But let us give a little more of Pedobaptist unfairness. Dr. 
E. Fuller has furnished us with a few specimens. A Mr. Lape 



274 WHAT IS BAPTISM ? 

has written a work in which he ostensibly quotes from Numbers 
xix, and " declares that the word ' siorinldecV is, in the original, 
baptized. The word in the original Septuagint is Periei^raii- 
tisthe — from rcmtizo to sprinkle.''^ So much for his learning 
and honesty. 

Again: Dr. Kurtz, in his remarks upon the jailor, omits the 
statement contained in the Bible that all the house believed. He 
tells of their joy, but somehow fails to give a remark at once 
significant and conclusive. Those that believed were not in- 
fants. Of course, this omission was accidental. (?) 

A Mr. Slicer has written a book, too. In quoting from 
Irenseus who, as he affirms, " wrote within sixty-seven years of 
the Apostolic times, he gives the following passage : ' Christ 
came to save all persons by himself; all, I mean, who by him 
are baptized (italics Mr. Slicer 's) unto God,"' &c. Dr. Fuller 
thus comments : " Irenseus wrote A. D. 178, and the word bap- 
tize is not in the passage.-' Of course this adding a word to the 
text of the father was quite accidental, and there was no end to 
subserve ! 

But I have a more serious charge against Dr. Kosser. On 
page 268 of his work on baptism, I find the following: '^ Mr. 
Booth, a distinguished Baptist, admits that ' the children of 
proselytes ivere bap)tizcd along ivith their parents.'''^ Here Dr. 
K. professes to give Booth's admission in the language he used. 
It is to be hoped that Dr. K. did not have Booth before him, but 
relied upon some one else who had sadly misrepresented that 
distinguished writer. Booth has never made any such conces- 
sion, as the reader will see from the following quotation from 
his " Pedobaptism Examined," in ''Baptist Library," vii, p. 
452. He is speaking of Pedobaptists making out proselyte bap- 
tism. He says : " On this plan of proceeding, a plain, unlet- 
tered man, with the New Testament only in his hand, though 
sincerely desirous of learning from his Lord what baptism is, 
and to whom it belongs, is not furnished with sufficient docu- 
ments to form a conclusion. No : he must study the records of 
Moses and well understand the covenant made with Abraham, 
as the father of the Jewish nation. Stranger still I he must, 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 275 

according to the opmion of many^ become a disciple of those wlio 
are the humble pupils of the Jewish rabbis — of those learned 
authors who being well versed in the writings of Maimonides and 
in the volumes of the Talmud, imagine themselves to have imported 
into the Christian church a great stock of intelligence concerning 
the mind of Christ, relative to the proper subjects of baptism. 
For it is thence only he is able to learn that the children of prose- 
lytes were baptized along with their parents when admitted 
members of the Jewish church ; and thence also he must infer 
that our Lord condescended to borrow of His enemies an impor- 
tant ordinance of religious worship for his own disciples.'' In 
all this can the reader find Booth admitting any such thing as 
Dr. K. asserts. Booth, in a vein of irony, shows how far- 
fetched is the effort to build infant baptism upon the foundation 
of proselyte baptism. He makes no sort of admission^ but 
shows how certain rabbinical writers have testified. The at- 
tempt to make him admit as Dr. E. would have him, is cer- 
tainly an evidence of the " unfairness of a Methodist." 

Again : Some Pedobaptist writers omit the words '' and then 
dips the child" in the account of the mode of baptizing in 
America as given by Mr. "Wolf, the missionary. Strange to 
say, they leave out the very words which describes the mode, 
and then claim that Americans baptize by pouring.^ 

Again : Dr. Woods, in his ^' Lectures," remarks : '' The tes-- 
timony of the early Christian writers in favor of infant baptism 
as the uniform practice of the church," &c. " We have evi- 
dence abundant, and specific, and certain, as history affords of 
almost any fact, that infant baptism universally prevailed from 
the days of the apostles through four centuries." If the reader 
will refer to the testimony of Wimer, Geiselin, Olshausen — in 
fact, almost the entire learning of Germany is against him, to- 
gether with scores of learned English Pedobaptists — he will see 
how absurd the statement is. 

But enough has been said to show that the charge of unfair- 
ness comes with an ill grace from our opponents. 

* See Hinton, page 182, 



€/ 



/ 



f 

\ t 



What is Baptism? 



-*• -^^^ -♦- ♦- 



KINaSBXJRY. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



